[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / abcu / ausneets / choroy / hydrus / in / miku / random / s ]

/pnd/ - Politics, News, Debate

and shitslinging
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Voice recorder Show voice recorder

(the Stop button will be clickable 5 seconds after you press Record)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Rules Log Spot Those Who Glow Protect Yourself
Libertarian Choice Awards winner for best neonazi forum of 2020!

File: a4f52060f41a24b⋯.jpeg (348.32 KB, 3200x1680, 40:21, 636141224599049405_NH_973….jpeg)

1ce7a9  No.149114

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

57eb43  No.149119

You're an idiot. This isn't 4chan.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

88f209  No.149134

A setup differs from a false flag.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1ce7a9  No.149135

>>149134

They attacked themselves. Most of the damage was done from the ground, plus maybe 1 ship sunk by air attack from the American air craft carriers.. The document proves it and shows how it was done.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c61733  No.149142

>>149119

Explain your statement.

>>149135

They didn’t, though. The US declared war on Japan in March 1941, then the US government allowed the Japanese to survey Pearl Harbor for attack and purposely sent its oldest ships there. Three days before the attack, FDR received a notification from the Australian military that the Japanese fleet was steaming toward Hawaii. FDR responded by telling the commanders at Pearl Harbor to stand down their forces and refused to inform them of the imminent threat.

It wasn’t a false flag. The US declared war LONG before Japan, and Pearl Harbor was simply casus belli for the US to attack Germany for the jews.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1ce7a9  No.149160

File: 9913d02d2806aea⋯.jpg (116.82 KB, 740x550, 74:55, burning_planes_and_hangars….jpg)

It was a false flag. There is simply no way that the damage that is shown, for example, in the attack on the airports, could have been done from the air. Also the main ship damaged in the attack, it did not have the magazine explode the way they tell us.

They couldn't let Japan attack Pearl Harbor because there was serious damage that the Japanese could have inflicted. For example, they could have hit many large fuel storage tanks at Pearl Harbor, which unlike the battleships could not easily be moved out of the way.

Also, allowing a Japanese on Pearl Harbor could have other, unpredictable consequences. A ship's magazine actually exploding might have damaged the harbor in a way it could have taken years to repair.

This is all addressed in the document above.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c61733  No.149161

>>149160

>there is simply no way

Prove it.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1ce7a9  No.149162

>>149161

>Prove it.

You really should read the document, since it does just that, and also addresses this from many different angles.

Anyways. Look at that photograph in >>149160

. Wheeler Field was supposedly attacked with bombs dropped from planes, according to what they would have you believe, but No bomb blast damage, No bomb craters. Airplanes burning while still arranged in neat little rows.

It doesn't look like damage that could have been done from the air.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c61733  No.149273

>>149162

>You really should read the document

No, do you know what a plane is? You’re fucking retarded, mate.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

aa8b3d  No.149367

>>149273

It sounds like you lost the argument, boomer Australian.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8d12f5  No.149404

>>149142

You just proven it.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8d12f5  No.149405

>>149367

You're a gay dude trolling for straight butthole, who cares what you think?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e1da86  No.149440

The US planes at the airfields were all prefectly lined up to be blasted by Japanese bombs. The battleships were perfectly lined up in a row to be torpedoed and bombed.

Documents or not, Pearl Harbor was a ridiculously easy target.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

283603  No.149522

>>149440

I've always thought of that, two obvious possible reasons is that America was that dumb or that it was doing it with the intention of making an easy target.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c61733  No.149538

>>149367

>absolutely no argument whatsoever

>can't even hold a conversation

>"bombings can't happen from the air!"

Okay, yep, sage. Hoax thread.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

aa8b3d  No.149542

>>149405

I think it's important to keep an open mind about these things. If the truth were told about Pearl Harbor and restitution made, and the Japanese finally freed from their occupation, how would this impact your lives? You would retain all your material comforts plus you would have a guilt-free conscience.

Why choose to protect the bankers in Washington? Why protect the Zogbots of the US armed forces? There is no benefit in that for humanity.

>>149538

You should read more carefully what I wrote. You might be getting too upset before you even finish reading it to actually comprehend it.

Let me explain in another way, wikipedia and the Pearl Harbor museum claim that the airfield pictured was attacked with general purpose bombs. These would have left bomb craters. There would have been blast damage and planes and equipment scattered about.

>>149440

>>149522

The United States had extremely good intelligence on the Japanese and had broken their codes. They would not have allowed a Japanese attack because this would have had unpredictable consequences that could have set the US war effort by a year or longer.

They had to make sure that that didn't happen, so when they destroyed things, for example the USS Arizona, they made sure that it didn't cause excess damage to the harbor. Even equipment close nearby wasn't damaged. Which would have been damaged if things had occurred the way they are described by historians.

That's what the document in the op explains in detail.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8b025d  No.149692

>>149538

>>absolutely no argument whatsoever

>>can't even hold a conversation

>>"bombings can't happen from the air!"

>Okay, yep, sage. Hoax thread.

And there we have our resident kike.

>>149142

>The US declared war on Japan in March 1941, then the US government allowed the Japanese to survey Pearl Harbor for attack and purposely sent its oldest ships there. Three days before the attack, FDR received a notification from the Australian military that the Japanese fleet was steaming toward Hawaii. FDR responded by telling the commanders at Pearl Harbor to stand down their forces and refused to inform them of the imminent threat.

You know, even if this was already a fabricated history, it's already more than enough to condemn the US' entry into war against Japan.

But the document provides very intriguing elements.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c61733  No.149693

>>149542

>You should read more carefully what I wrote.

You wrote hoaxes.

>>149692

>you’re a jew because you refuse to believe that planes can bomb something

Sage, solely because it triggers you.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8b025d  No.149694

>The narrative that most people seem to be familiar with goes something like this: Japan wanted to deliver a declaration of war minutes before the attack, but it was delayed because of reasons. This declaration of war was delivered a few minutes or hours late. This alleged declaration of war is supposed to amount to an admission that Japan was behind the attack, and made them war criminalsbecause in those days a war could not be carried out without a declaration of war.

One could argue that they wanted to push for a surprise attack and then send the declaration of war almost immediately after the first few bombs hit PH.

>The Japanese actually delivered a declaration of war, the next day, December 8, after it had become clear that they were being scapegoated for the “attack”. This is also admitted to by the Wikipedia article.

The quoted article is from May 27 2020. An edit was made the 29th. The text I'll quote from wikipedia is the same.

>The attack took place before any formal declaration of war was made by Japan, but this was not Admiral Yamamoto's intention. He originally stipulated that the attack should not commence until thirty minutes after Japan had informed the United States that peace negotiations were at an end. However, the attack began before the notice could be delivered. Tokyo transmitted the 5000-word notification (commonly called the "14-Part Message") in two blocks to the Japanese Embassy in Washington. Transcribing the message took too long for the Japanese ambassador to deliver it on schedule; in the event, it was not presented until more than an hour after the attack began.

You'd think the nips would know of this, of the time limitations needed for a transcription.

It's possible they knew it would take time as part of their surprise attack. Although a surprise attack is quite a ludicrous idea. In such tense times, is it possible the US navy would not be patrolling the territorial waters and even beyond? Especially as the US were clearly provoking Japan on and on?

> (In fact, U.S. code breakers had already deciphered and translated most of the message hours before he was scheduled to deliver it.)

Well there, that's odd. So the unofficial route shows that the message could be translated hours before the attack, but through the official route, it took too much time?

>The final part is sometimes described as a declaration of war. While it was viewed by a number of senior U.S government and military officials as a very strong indicator negotiations were likely to be terminated and that war might break out at any moment, it neither declared war nor severed diplomatic relations

Now that's almost smoking like a good ol' gun. So the nips attack, send a message that might arrive as scheduled, that is 30 minutes before the attack (while, again, the US had actually managed to translate it hours before the attack, so they had all the reasons to be even more on alert), or many minutes or hours after, but despite all of this clear agression, destroying of assets and removal of life, the Japanese would not think this would be seen as an open declaration of war? Like… what?

It does not follow.

> A declaration of war was printed on the front page of Japan's newspapers in the evening edition of December 8 (late December 7 in the U.S.)

So the nips actually were into declaring war in a formal way after all… but only in Japan? Does that even make sense to you? If you're going to declare war, won't you make your words match your actions and send a proper memo to the targeted party?

>In 1999, however, Takeo Iguchi, a professor of law and international relations at International Christian University in Tokyo, discovered documents that pointed to a vigorous debate inside the government over how, and indeed whether, to notify Washington of Japan's intention to break off negotiations and start a war, including a December 7 entry in the war diary saying, "[O]ur deceptive diplomacy is steadily proceeding toward success." Of this, Iguchi said, "The diary shows that the army and navy did not want to give any proper declaration of war, or indeed prior notice even of the termination of negotiations … and they clearly prevailed."

So we're back to "it's a trap!"

That's pretty much the official stance historians agree on.

>The Japanese actually delivered a declaration of war, the next day, December 8, after it had become clear that they were being scapegoated for the “attack”. This is also admitted to by the Wikipedia article.

The article simply does not make such an admission regarding the whole scapegoating side of this.

The other claims are very solid though.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8b025d  No.149695

>At Wheeler Field, we can see planes still arranged in neat little rows, burning on the ground. There are no bomb craters or blast damage, indicating that this is not damage from bombs.

it might be good to add a (Figure 1) in this sentence, for the sake of clarity.

Also, a weak but possible argument could be made that the damage was totally obscured by the smoke as the wind pushed it over the targeted area of the airfield.

>Additionally, from the Wikipedia article on Pearl Harbor, we know that the oil storage facilities were not hit. Whatever is burning in this photograph remains a mystery, but it does not appear to be the bomb itself or a likely target.

We be needin fireballs. All explosions are enhanced with gasoline, from TV shows to real military demonstrations by contractors. It's gay af but that's the way it goes.

So there you have a huge fireball but it appears no considerable fuel reservoir was hit. Bombs would simply create blast waves, pulverizing their targets more than setting them on fire. This requires further investigation.

>Second, we can note the behavior of the people in the photograph. There are at least 12 people who can be seen standing around, plus one walking casually and one running. This kind of behavior is inconsistent with soldiers at a military base. The military trains every day on how to respond to an attack, this is their job. They know exactly what they should be doing during an attack. It’s unlikely that the procedure is to simply to just stand around and have a look, and if, like the man in the sailor suit in the foreground, one is carrying a fellow wounded American, to just set him down on the ground because he might want to have a look also.

It's impossible to tell how people would exactly respond to a real, live event, no matter the preparation. Most of them are certainly just standing and staring at the flames though. Without knowing when this picture was taken, without time context, it's harder to know when this exactly happens during the "attack".

Nevertheless, had the base been really attack by strafing planes and hit by bombs, you would certainly expect them running in all directions, ID4 style, not staring at this giant bonfire like fucking penguins.

>French airport, German controlled, bombarded in 1944

>looks like the moon

Big nail.

>The were 350 airplanes attacking, and there were only 2 ships destroyed.

Nips used non-anime bullets though.

>It was the target ship designated to be sunk during military exercises.

This is explained later down in the document but the reader should be given this information, otherwise it looks like an empty claim.

>An unexpected item in the description of the attack (in the Wikipedia article for the Arizona) is that the ship was attacked by 10 Nakajima B5N2 torpedo bombers flying at 3000m, using bombs and not torpedoes. This caused the forward magazine to explode, destroying the ship.Why the Japanese would choose such a bizarre way to attack is not explained. Why would they use torpedo bombers instead of dive bombers to drop bombs?

Wording could be better. It sounds like they didn't drop bombs but actually threw torpedoes.

>This bizarre attack profile is probably because an explanation was needed for the fact that the “Japanese” had completely missed several ships on battleship row. Yet, the explanation is even more inexplicable than what it’s supposed to explain.

Which brings us to the real question: if it was a false flag, there must have been planes otherwise nearly all the marine personnel would have told to the press that no nip planes flew over "our boys'" heads that day?

>400 tons of high explosive should be considered a minimum, since some of the shells would have been of the high-explosive type, each of which would have contained nearly 500kg of high-explosive.

Even if only 10% had exploded, you'd be looking at the sudden detonation of 40 tons of chemical explosive. Look into simulations of nuclear explosions made with stacks of chemical explosives and you'll see that it's HUGE. It makes a massive fireball and a very powerful blast wave. It wouldn't even leave anything on the boat to nicely burn there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIQr62lZbsM

>Operation Blowdown was a joint UK-US-Australian operation at Iron Range in northern Queensland, Australia 18/07/1963. The test was conducted to simulate the effects of a small nuclear detonation over a rain forest. It involved the detonation of 50 tons of TNT atop a 43 meter tower. The explosion turned the surrounding forest into a twisted knot making troop movements almost impossible.

Looks a bit Beyruthish, doesn't it?

>>This will be useful in case the rain forest ever decides to attack us.

(lol)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8b025d  No.149696

As for craters, going to 9/11, we know the Shanksville one is fake, just like the hole in the Pentagon's wall does not match the alleged size of the hijacked plane's main body.

There is something sadistic, twisted and evil about all of these. They absolutely know that their approximate reconstructions of events that just don't fit would drive people insane, while the government, the media, the schools and your neighbors would keep telling you that it's perfectly logical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3bQE2FYcKs

>Operation Sailor Hat - Color-Corrected 500 Ton Explosion

>This is video from Operation Sailor Hat, conducted three times between February and June, 1965 in Kaho'olawe, Hawaii. It was the equivalent of 0.5 kilotons (500 tons, 1M pounds) of TNT. Video has been marginally color-corrected and the sound cleaned up.

Half a kiloton of TNT. You can appreciate the size of the crater (@ 7-42 and 8-42).

>Unlike with the Arizona, there doesn’t seem to be anything remarkable about the narrative on how the Utah sank during the supposed attack. It just sank

What was the damage then?

>But did the Japanese make any denials? What was the official position of the Japanese government towards the accusations of the Americans during WWII? These would be interesting to find out, but the author of this document has been unable to find an answer. This could be an indication that this has been very carefully censored.

As seen above, it appears a certain Takeo Iguchi found evidence in newspapers that the Japanese government did declare war in nip newspapers. Which doesn't make sense at all, so this certainly needs to be verified because, y'know, (((wikipedia))).

>The involvement of the Japanese was also denied by US anti-aircraft gunners at the Pearl Harbor military base, during an interview by MovieTone News.

This really needs more details. The official story requires Japanese planes attacking several airfields. It cannot be quickly handwaved away with a detached reference to some gunners' words being reworded into saying "no nips here".

Where and what were the planes involved, if there were any?

That's a MAJOR question.

>One Battleship Lost, 1,500 Killed in Hawaii

Now, are we sure about those 1,500 kills?

>Wikipedia tells us that there were 5 Japanese midget subs at Pearl Harbor. One of these was beached, and resulted in one prisoner of war, Kazuo Sakamaki.

Where was it beached and when exactly?

So, final tally: the document is very interdasting, everything looks like it's indeed a false flag, everything is staged, explosions are too weak, effects are too clean.

It's in a serious need of an update and better wording in some claims though.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c61733  No.149701

File: 902c6e67a49999e⋯.jpg (71.78 KB, 682x511, 682:511, NAS_PH_Dispensary.jpg)

File: 291887a08bc2350⋯.jpg (33.12 KB, 450x386, 225:193, pearl_harbor_1941_albumpic….jpg)

File: 355f91489fdd8d1⋯.jpg (104.16 KB, 760x600, 19:15, 760px_Bomb_crater_near_Han….jpg)

File: b50843bcd059417⋯.jpg (210.94 KB, 600x564, 50:47, navy_g387565_600x564.jpg)

File: bdb01bdba9fcd2c⋯.jpg (129.12 KB, 600x399, 200:133, nps_0082_600x399.jpg)

>If Japan had indeed attacked Pearl Harbor, one would expect that historians would have a detailed, concrete explanation of what exact circumstances would have led to the Japanese government making such a uniquely strange and suicidal choice.

We do have that explanation. FDR declared war on Japan earlier that year by seizing all Japanese domestic assets and violating the trade deal providing Japan with oil. Japan retaliated by attacking Pearl Harbor.

>The sinking of the Lusitania

Which was done by Germany. Just like Pearl Harbor was done by Japan. Not a false flag. Learn what words mean before you use them.

>The USS Liberty of 1967

Not a false flag committed by the United States. You really don’t know anything.

>in those days a war could not be carried out without a declaration of war.

Really, man.

>There are no bomb craters or blast damage

See, there are.

>What was the official position of the Japanese government towards the accusations of the Americans during WWII? These would be interesting to find out, but the author of this document has been unable to find an answer. This could be an indication that this has been very carefully censored.

Not really, since the German denial of the Holocaust is extremely well documented.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f16f3c  No.150017

>>149695

Somethings do need to be re-written to be more clear. Good point.

>>149695

>>400 tons of high explosive should be considered a minimum, since some of the shells would have been of the high-explosive type, each of which would have contained nearly 500kg of high-explosive.

>Even if only 10% had exploded, you'd be looking at the sudden detonation of 40 tons of chemical explosive. Look into simulations of nuclear explosions made with stacks of chemical explosives and you'll see that it's HUGE. It makes a massive fireball and a very powerful blast wave. It wouldn't even leave anything on the boat to nicely burn there.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIQr62lZbsM

This is a really good video that reinforces the point that I'm trying to make. I'll be definitely be linking to this and including it with the rest of the sources.

>>149696

>>Unlike with the Arizona, there doesn’t seem to be anything remarkable about the narrative on how the Utah sank during the supposed attack. It just sank

>What was the damage then?

This probably does need a little bit more expansion looking into.

>>But did the Japanese make any denials? What was the official position of the Japanese government towards the accusations of the Americans during WWII? These would be interesting to find out, but the author of this document has been unable to find an answer. This could be an indication that this has been very carefully censored.

>As seen above, it appears a certain Takeo Iguchi found evidence in newspapers that the Japanese government did declare war in nip newspapers. Which doesn't make sense at all, so this certainly needs to be verified because, y'know, (((wikipedia))).

I don't know if the declaration of war that you are referring to is to be counted as an admission of responsibility for the attack. The United States also declared war on Japan on December 8.

>>149696

>Where and what were the planes involved, if there were any?

What you are trying to ask is whether there is any evidence of those planes?

I was able to find a couple of pictures of wreckage were alleged Japanese planes. Supposedly 29 were lost.

The pilots of all but 1 of the 29 planes are missing. No graves on corpses no nothing.

https://visitpearlharbor.org/happened-japanese-fighters-shot/

There was one Japanese pilot that (supposedly) crash landed and was killed in an altercation involving civilians. This might need more looking into.

>>One Battleship Lost, 1,500 Killed in Hawaii

>Now, are we sure about those 1,500 kills?

Good point. So far, I have only found one picture of an alleged corpse. I'll try to find for any other evidence there might be.

Thanks for reading it and making some very helpful comments!

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f16f3c  No.150019

>>149701

About the photographs. There are a couple of pictures that look like bomb craters, but you'd expect clusters of them around the targets.

>>The sinking of the Lusitania

>Which was done by Germany. Just like Pearl Harbor was done by Japan. Not a false flag. Learn what words mean before you use them.

While researching about Pearl Harbor, it came to my attention that the British mined the area where the Lusitania sunk during WWII. Some of these mines remain to this day. The main reason they might have done that is because they want to cover up something. I listed it as a possible false flag.

I'm glad you are taking the time to read it. I welcome your feedback.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c5e9a1  No.150227

>>150017

>Somethings do need to be re-written to be more clear. Good point.

I'd kindly suggest you add the more or less detailed revision history at the end of the document.

>This is a really good video that reinforces the point that I'm trying to make. I'll be definitely be linking to this and including it with the rest of the sources.

You might want to look into these tests and their associated literature:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosive_nuclear_effects_testing

Look at the "yield" (in pounds, knowing that the pound is about 453.6 grams, slightly rounded up) and "notes" columns to find tests within the range you're looking for and similar in explosion type regarding its position (high above ground, on ground, shallow underground/water, deep underground).

I think a good range would be anything between 1 ton to 500-600 tons.

>This probably does need a little bit more expansion looking into.

I think so because it seems to be brushed under the rug as "shit happened; next".

>I don't know if the declaration of war that you are referring to is to be counted as an admission of responsibility for the attack. The United States also declared war on Japan on December 8.

Just to remember that the 8th of December started much earlier in Japan, so it's possible it would have been printed during the 7th if the translation process was fast enough.

It would also be good to look into the a reliable translation of the Japanese declaration and see exactly what it says.

I think you're following some crafty rhite wabbit here.

>What you are trying to ask is whether there is any evidence of those planes?

Yes. The big story is "niplanes came, bomb bomb bomb → 1500 dead people 'n' boats burning etc."

So one does expect to find considerable amount of reliable testimonies about those planes' bombing runs (and of course, considerable damage too which as you have seen, is massively lacking).

We can consider that some false testimonies could have been planted too.

Besides, although the government would pretend being taken by surprise, they still might have been prepared enough to actually take pictures of this event, even if this amount of preparedness would certainly not fit with the usual naive narrative.

>I was able to find a couple of pictures of wreckage were alleged Japanese planes. Supposedly 29 were lost.

>The pilots of all but 1 of the 29 planes are missing. No graves on corpses no nothing.

>https://visitpearlharbor.org/happened-japanese-fighters-shot/

>There was one Japanese pilot that (supposedly) crash landed and was killed in an altercation involving civilians. This might need more looking into.

OK. That's fishy af. Either the Japanese were already deploying roboplanes, which would explain the lack of pilots, or the one single pilot conveniently killed (every.fucking.time) was just planted there and the pilots flying the niplanes were not nips at all. You cannot capture or shoot down 29 planes and find almost zero dead pilot, unless they turned into instaghosts for future extra-painful-revenge.

>Good point. So far, I have only found one picture of an alleged corpse. I'll try to find for any other evidence there might be.

Yeah and 1500 is quite a lot of people. Where are the corpses, the burying events, the tombstones, the families, etc?

I hate to say that, but you have a looooot of work to complete here, but I also have the feeling it's a very noble endeavor.

Btw, archive everything. It's also possible that this some 17 pages document could soon turn into a whole book. Time will tell.

_Anx_

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c5e9a1  No.150234

>>149701

>pictures

We don't know when and where they were taken exactly. Evidence could be easily doctored, as we've seen with 9/11.

>pic 1

A floor in some building is cracked. Plane bombs ought to carry more power than tank shells, which effects are largely known as there are plenty of Middle Eastern cases of buildings being damaged by them.

What we see here begs explanation: windows are partially broken despite being located at ground zero or perhaps just one level above the explosion, which you would expect to have literally blasted the whole room anyway.

I doubt the bomb cracked the floor to detonate in the room below, although that would explain how the floor we see could have protected the room in the picture. But it would require looking into both:

a. the triggering mechanism of the bomb.

b. the yield of the bomb.

c. all the historical data of that picture.

I also see that the horizontal window above the two-panes door in the background seems to be intact, although dirty.

If the blast happened in that room, one could expect a lot of the rubble to be pushed sideways away from the hole. But maybe all of these are debris from the ceiling. This could only be verified by knowing what building we're looking at exactly here.

>pic 2

What is this? There barely a non-crater like hole right at the feet of the building, we see one man standing up halfway through it, naked torso.

Where is the real bomb crater? Where are the numerous bullet marks?

I must note that real bomb craters are usually round, can leave radial scorch marks and push debris away. The bomb creates a blast wave.

Here we're looking at something like simple civilian works. There are darker marks on the damaged walls right above the hole and also to the right, especially on the second column.

>pic 3

A very small circular hole that seems too small for the yield of a bomb, with plenty of rubble around as if it had been dirtily dug out instead of being blown off.

>pics 4 and 5

What is that? We see ships but is there any observable damage? Aside from trees and clouds, plus strange white things in pic 4, we don't see crater nor large plumes of fire.

>We do have that explanation. FDR declared war on Japan earlier that year by seizing all Japanese domestic assets and violating the trade deal providing Japan with oil. Japan retaliated by attacking Pearl Harbor.

That is a good explanation although the US government had no guarantee that the Japanese would attack.

Also, despite the clear violations and provocations, it would still remain far more useful for the Japanese government not to go to war with the US. They could always try to find a new deal with some other country to compensate for the losses. They had almost nothing to gain by going to war here.

>Which was done by Germany. Just like Pearl Harbor was done by Japan. Not a false flag. Learn what words mean before you use them.

The false flag part could be found in what the Lusitana was used for: parading as a neutral and civilian ship when it was certainly not neutral at all regarding its cargo and actually was a regular yet disguised war target. But maybe that does not fall under the "false flag" definition, which usually means one faction rising the colors of another.

>Not a false flag committed by the United States. You really don’t know anything.

This is correct, it's our (((friends))) who attacked this regular warship and they totally knew what they were shooting at.

>>in those days a war could not be carried out without a declaration of war.

>Really, man.

Back then protocols still meant something. This was not a Cold War engagement of proxy forces.

When a nation clearly goes another, there is a declaration of war to be found. It's the way it goes.

>>There are no bomb craters or blast damage

>See, there are.

No. That's gas-chamber tier level of evidence bro. Show some real craters please.

> the German denial of the Holocaust is extremely well documented.

The fuck you're on? The Holocaust is a fable that's been created literally decades after the supposed act.

Until then, all sides knew camps existed. The Nazi literally invited the Red Cross into some of them ffs.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

97f0dc  No.150579

>>150227

>>Somethings do need to be re-written to be more clear. Good point.

>I'd kindly suggest you add the more or less detailed revision history at the end of the document.

I'm going to keep track of changes with git.

It also will be accessible from now on at: https://pearl-harbor.neocities.org/

That's easier to remember than some ipfs hash that changes with every version of the document.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ba3c22  No.150713

>>149119

>(1)

Bump.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c5e9a1  No.150806

iump

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

28f5de  No.150811

>>149114

Idk about all that but it is interesting that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the most Christian parts of Japan. The ground zero target in one of those cities was the largest Christian church in Japan.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7a748d  No.150816

http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/britains-pacific-war-against-the-united-states-in-the-age-of-the-anglo-american-special-relationship/

“…we must put the growing consciousness that there will be only two great powers left — Great Britain and the United States. Which one is going to be greater, politically and commercially? In that constantly recurring thought may be found much of the Anglo-American friction that arises.”

—Sir William Wiseman before Versailles, 1918

The most important constant in the history of the United States of America has been the implacable hostility of the British Empire and the London-centered British oligarchy. This hostility generated the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 and the Civil War, in addition to many lesser clashes. But after Gettysburg and Vicksburg in 1863, the reality of US military and naval superiority forced London to come to terms with the inevitable persistence of the United States on the world scene as a great power for another century and more. By 1895-1898, galloping British decadence, expressed as industrial decline combined with a looming inability to maintain global naval domination, suggested to the circles of the soon-to-be King Edward VII the advisability of harnessing the power and resources of the United States to the British imperial chariot. Thus was born the London-Washington Special Relationship, under which the United States was established as London’s auxiliary, proxy, and dupe through such stages as the 1898 Anglo-American rapprochement before Manila Bay, Edward VII’s sponsorship of Theodore Roosevelt’s aspirations to “Anglo-Saxon” respectability and, most decisively, Woodrow Wilson’s declaration of war on Germany in April, 1917. Under the Special Relationship, London has parlayed its financial and epistemological dominance over the United States into profound and often decisive influence over US directions in foreign policy and finance.

The essence of British policy has long been embodied in the immoral doctrine of geopolitics or the quest for the balance of power. For centuries this meant that the New Venice on the Thames habitually concluded an alliance with the second-strongest power in Europe so as to checkmate the strongest continental power. Naturally this approach conjured up the danger that in case of “success,” the second-strongest continental power of today might become the strongest of tomorrow, and sometimes strong enough to threaten London. London therefore did everything possible to guarantee that their continental surrogates of today received the maximum possible punishment so that their interlude of alliance with London, even if victorious on paper, left them in absolute prostration and deprived of the ability to threaten the British. In this way, London’s enemies and London’s allies embarked over the centuries on converging roads to ruin. After antagonizing Spain, Holland, France, Russia and Germany as both friends and foes over several centuries, the British turned in the early years of our own century to the Special Relationship with the US. The onset of this Special Relationship coincided roughly with Britain’s implicit loss of world maritime supremacy, starting in the Pacific.

The Special Relationship has meant that during most of the twentieth century, the British have had no choice but to batten for dear life onto an alliance with the strongest world power, the United States, and have thus been deprived by force majeure of their preferred option of allying with various powers against the dominant and bitterly resented United States. But this instinctive impulse, although dissembled, has periodically erupted into full view, as in the case of the Nazi King Edward VIII, Lady Astor, and the 1930’s Cliveden set, who favored an alliance with Hitler, not with Roosevelt. Today the British writer John Charmley expresses a retrospective desire for a deal with Hitler in 1940, rather than an alliance with the US. Another celebrated case was the 1956 Suez crisis, when atavistic Anglo-French colonial reflexes brought on a confrontation with the Eisenhower administration.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7a748d  No.150817

The British response to their predicament has been to act out their hatred against the United States surreptitiously, in the form of treachery, by betraying their American “ally” through more or less covert collusion with a series of powers hostile to the United States. If the British had richly earned the universal obloquy of “Perfidious Albion” during the time of their world naval domination, then surely new and historically unknown dimensions of perfidy have been added during the time of British decadence when they have been forced to conduct their duplicitous strategy from the behind the shelter of the Special Relationship. British perfidy has assumed its greatest dimensions in the Asia-Pacific region.

This essay will concentrate on four important episodes of London’s anti-American operations conducted especially in the Asia- Pacific area under the aegis of the Special Relationship:

The Anglo-American rivalry for world naval domination from 1916 to about 1938, which brought the United States to the brink of war with London in 1920-21 and again in 1927-28, with the virtual certainty that war with London would mean war with London’s ally, Japan.

World War II in the Pacific, during which the British attempted to maximize US losses in the struggle against Japan by depriving Gen. MacArthur of logistical support and forcing a retreat to the Brisbane line while Japan occupied northern and central Australia. By then sponsoring a strategy of bloody frontal assault against a series of well consolidated Japanese strong points, the British hoped to prolong the Pacific war until as late as 1955, decimating American forces in a manner comparable to France’s horrendous losses in World War I.

The Korean War, in which the initial North Korean invasion was openly invited by British and London-controlled Harrimanite networks. When Communist China intervened against Gen. MacArthur’s forces, the British insisted on imposing the straightjacket of “limited war” or cabinet warfare on the US response, yielding immense military advantage to Mao while the British supplied Mao’s forces through Hong Kong. At the same time, the British triple agent network of Philby-Maclean-Burgess-Blunt-Lord Victor Rothschild provided Moscow, Beijing, and Pyongyang with all vital US military dispatches. The British goal was to build up the Maoist regime as a counter to US Pacific hegemony.

The Vietnam War, in which the Anglophile Harriman-Rusk-Bundy-McNamara group reversed the Kennedy-MacArthur policy of non-intervention after the London-directed assassination of Kennedy in November, 1963. Key encouragement for the US buildup in Vietnam was provided by Sir Robert Thompson of British intelligence, allegedly the world’s leading expert on guerrilla warfare. Thompson was a friend of Kissinger who later advised Nixon, and claims to be the first Britisher allowed to participate in a meeting of the US National Security Council. Functioning as an advisor to President Diem in Saigon, Thompson was also the leading author of the “counterinsurgency” strategy which guaranteed that the US effort would end in bloody failure while US society was convulsed and Weimarized by conflict over the war.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7a748d  No.150818

And if there's any doubt that Britain is the mortal enemy of the USA it can be dispelled by observing that in the Korean war, Britain gave the USSR their Rolls Royce jet engine that the Russians used to such deadly effect with their MIG 15

https://aviationdoctor.wordpress.com/2018/06/23/how-the-british-rolls-royce-nene-turbojet-engine-allowed-russias-mig-15-nato-code-named-fagot-to-fight-the-usaf-in-the-korean-war-and-65-years-later-it-is-still-in-service-with-the-korean-peo/

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7a748d  No.150820

British-US Naval Rivalry in World War I and the Interwar Years

Col. House

Col. Edward M. House

“…the relations of the two countries [Great Britain and the United States] are beginning to assume the same character as that [sic] of England and Germany before the war.” —Colonel House at Versailles [Seymour, iv.p. 495]

After the US had entered World War I on the British side in April, 1917, Washington and London were, formally speaking, close military allies. But this did not prevent acute tensions from developing over the issue of the size of the American battleship fleet and the threat it posed to British naval supremacy, which London had jealously defended against all comers since Lord Nelson’s victory over the combined French and Spanish fleets at Trafalgar in 1805.

The American threat to British supremacy in capital ships (battleships and battle cruisers, which at the time were the decisive weapons in any fleet action) had emerged in 1916, before the US entry into the war. The US naval construction bill that became law in 1916 called for building 156 new warships, including 16 capital ships (10 battleships and 6 battle cruisers). If these ships had been built, the United States would have achieved theoretical naval parity with Great Britain and would have enjoyed a defensive superiority over the British in any future confrontation because of the better qualities of the US ships and because of the American geographical position. In 1918, Secretary of the Navy Daniels proposed doubling the 1916 program, which would have been the coup de grâce for Britannia’s rule of the waves.

The British were horrified by the prospect of seeing their battle fleet outclassed by the United States. Even US-UK parity was abhorrent to Sir Winston Churchill, who told the House of Commons in November 1918: “Nothing in the world, nothing that you may think of, or dream of, or anyone may tell you; no arguments, however specious; no appeals however seductive, must lead you to abandon that naval supremacy on which the life of our country depends.” [Buckley, p. 25]

The British argued that the United States ought to build destroyers and other convoy escort craft, along with freighters. These would be useful in the war against Germany, but of far less utility in a possible later showdown with London. Sir Eric Geddes, the First Lord of the Admiralty came to the US in October 1918 to agitate the threat of a German submarine offensive in the hopes of pushing the Wilson administration in the desired direction. In the event, only one battleship of those called for in the 1916 program was ever built, and Britain kept maritime domination until 1942-43.

The issue of naval supremacy generated a bitter US-UK conflict at Versailles. The German High Seas fleet, previously the second most powerful navy in the world, was interned by the British at Scapa Flow. Elements of the London oligarchy wanted to incorporate the most powerful German units into the Royal Navy, thus re-enforcing British predominance on the world’s oceans, but this plan was opposed by parts of the US government. The issue was settled when the German ships were scuttled by their own crews.

But with Germany eliminated as a naval contender, Washington was gripped by the uneasy awareness that there were now only two battle fleets left in the North Atlantic – the British and the American. American anxiety was heightened by the British alliance with Japan, the number three world naval power, which threatened the US in the Pacific. Given the British track record, the stage was set for a possible US-UK naval rivalry which might lead to war. A memo prepared for Wilson by the US Navy in April 1919 recalled the ominous fact that “every commercial rival of the British Empire has eventually found itself at war with Great Britain – and has been defeated…We are setting out to be the greatest commercial rival of Great Britain on the sea.” Even the Anglophile Wilson wrote some time later that “it is evident to me that we are on the eve of a commercial war of the severest sort, and I am afraid that Great Britain will prove capable of as great commercial savagery as Germany has displayed for so many years in her competitive methods.” Under these circumstances, the cry for a “navy second to none” was increasingly persuasive.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7a748d  No.150821

The British government made plain their intention to cling to naval supremacy, if necessary engaging in an all-out naval race with Washington. In the spring of 1919 British Prime Minister David Lloyd George told Wilson’s advisor Col. House “Great Britain would spend her last guinea to keep a navy superior to that of the United States or any other power.” [Buckley, p. 21]

The clashes at Versailles quickly became so heated that the threat of war was raised by the American side. The patriot Admiral William S. Benson, the US Chief of Naval Operations, warned the British at Paris that if they persisted in demanding naval supremacy, “I can assure you that it will mean but one thing and that is war between Great Britain and the United States.” [Buckley, p. 2]

This explosive conflict was defused by the Anglophile Col. House through an exchange of memoranda with the British delegate Lord Robert Cecil. In these memos of 10 April 1919, the British agreed to support Wilson’s chimera of a League of Nations, and not to object to an affirmation of the Monroe Doctrine being placed in the League Covenant. Wilson promised the British to postpone vessels called for in the 1916 plan but not yet laid down, which froze the vast majority.

The House-Cecil secret diplomacy solved nothing, in part because of the complications introduced by Britain’s ally, the Japanese Empire. Although this salient fact has been much obscured by the events of the Second World War, it must be recalled that for the first two decades of this century, the Japanese and British Empires were the closest of allies. This relationship had been inaugurated by British King Edward VII in the framework of his overall post-Boer War revamping of the British strategic posture, and had been proven useful to London during the Russo-Japanese war. It must be stressed that the growth of an aggressive and expansionist imperialist faction in Japan would have been unthinkable without British support.

Under the aegis of the British alliance, Japanese power had grown rapidly as rival powers were eliminated seriatim. First the Russian Empire was defeated in 1905, and the Russian fleet virtually annihilated by Admiral Togo. Then, during World War I, the Japanese, still closely allied with London, joined the Allies and attacked German bases and colonies in the Far East, eliminating the German presence in the Pacific. Since France was being bled white by trench warfare, that country also had no resources left for a naval presence east of Suez. This left Japan as the masters of the western Pacific, well placed for encroachments on China under their “21 demands.”

There were rumors at Versailles that the British were planning to transfer to Japan some of their Queen Elizabeth fast battleships; these were the best superdreadnoughts in the world, combining the armament and armor of a battleship with the speed of a battle cruiser, and had been the one bright spot in the dismal British performance at the 1916 Battle of Jutland.

Even worse, from the US point of view, was the fact that Japan had during the war seized from Germany the Pacific island groups of the Marianas, the Carolines, and the Marshals. Few of the American soldiers and marines who fought on these island chains during World War II were aware that they had been acquired for Japan at Versailles under British sponsorship. Since these island groupings were astride the US line of naval communications to Guam and the Philippines, the Japanese mandate over these islands was a time bomb ticking towards a new conflict. Thus in the Pacific no less than in Europe did Versailles make a new world conflict virtually inevitable.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7a748d  No.150822

File: 523a4595721dbe4⋯.jpg (8.66 KB, 228x300, 19:25, Warren_G_Harding.jpg)

So President Harding was assassinated by the treacherous greenteeth when he was poisoned at a banquet in Vancouver BC.

The ancient British maxim of allying with the number three power against the number two power dictated an Anglo-Japanese common front against the United States, and spokesmen for the British oligarchy argued the case for this policy in the secret councils of Whitehall. F. Ashton-Gwatkin of the Far Eastern Department of the British Foreign Office offered the following considerations for the conduct of British policy in case of war between the United States and Britain’s oldest major ally, Japan: Great Britain might find it “impossible” to remain neutral in the event of a US-Japanese conflict. The US “can manage without us, but Japan cannot.” Geographical and economic factors would push London towards a “pro-Japanese intervention, in spite of the fact that our natural sympathies would be on the American side.” “In our own material interest we should have to take action, and perhaps armed action, to prevent the United States of America from reducing Japan to complete bankruptcy.” A Japanese-US war for Ashton Gwatkin would represent a “calamity to the British Empire, since victory for either side would upset the balance of power in Asia. [Memorandum by Ashton-Gwatkin, “British Neutrality in the Event of a Japanese-American War,” October 10, 1921, Foreign Office F.3012/2905/23 at Public Record Office, London, cited in Buckley, p. 28].

In plain language, London would line up with Tokyo for war against Washington. By the winter of 1920-21, a war scare was developing on the Potomac. The combined British and Japanese fleets would far outclass the US, forcing the American navy on the defensive in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. A war beginning with a direct clash with the British fleet was becoming thinkable, and in that case the Japanese were considered as certain to join in. A clash with Japan in the Pacific was even more plausible, and the British response might come along the lines theorized by Ashton-Gwatkin.

The British for their part were alarmed that Woodrow Wilson, their willing stooge of 1917, was about to be superseded by the Republican Sen. Warren G. Harding of Ohio, who had won the 1920 election over the Democrat Cox, who promised more Wilsonianism, Harding was a small-town newspaper editor with political roots similar to those of William McKinley, who had been the last nationalist US president. Harding had been a strong protectionist and had opposed the League of Nations. Harding had usually voted with the pro-navy block of senators, and had insisted that the US should be “the most eminent of maritime nations” with a navy “equal to the aspirations” of the country. If Harding had acted on these ideas as President, the US would have been destined to seize naval supremacy.

Harding became the target of a campaign of denigration and scandal-mongering with the standard London trademark. London’s assets harped on the theme that Harding had been chosen in a “smoke-filled room” at the GOP convention. The London destabilization of the Harding administration centered on the Teapot Dome affair. Naval oil reserves at Teapot Dome, Wyoming, and Elk Hills, California, had been transferred to the Department of the Interior and sold to private investors, including Sinclair Oil, by Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall. Fall was accused of having accepted a $100,000 bribe. A key figure in the emergence of the scandal was Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., who was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy and the son of the Anglophile President.

In August, 1923, as he was contemplating a run for a second term, Harding toured the western United States and Alaska by rail. After passing through Vancouver, British Columbia, he headed south and became ill. His complaint was first diagnosed as ptomaine poisoning caused by eating rotten crabs. Published accounts contend that Harding had in reality suffered a heart attack. Harding was taken to San Francisco, where he was stricken by pneumonia. He seemed to be recovering when he was killed by a cerebral thrombosis, although no autopsy was ever carried out. Wild rumors alleged that he had been poisoned by his own wife. At present, Harding belongs with William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor on the list of American presidents who died in office under highly suspicious circumstances, with the British always the prime suspects in case of foul play.

Harding was succeeded upon his death by Vice President Calvin Coolidge, from the New England oligarchical family.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7a748d  No.150824

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Harding was influenced as President by Republican figures like the Wall Street lawyer and former Secretary of State Elihu Root and the Boston Brahmin Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Harding’s cabinet included Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes, a former New York governor and Supreme Court Justice who had been the 1916 GOP presidential candidate. Another influential was GOP Senator Oscar Underwood. It was through the influence of these men that Harding was persuaded to invite Britain, Japan, and other powers to an international conference on the limitation of naval armaments and related questions that convened in Washington on November 12, 1921, just three years after the Armistice that terminated hostilities in World War I.

1921 Washington Naval Conference

Washington Naval Conference, 1921

In a dramatic speech at the opening of the Washington Naval Conference, Secretary Hughes made a sweeping proposal for the reduction of naval armaments, offering to scrap 15 older pre- dreadnought battleships and to abort the construction of 15 new battleships (those of the 1916 plan) provided the British scrapped 19 older battleships and stopped building 4 more. The Japanese were invited to scrap 10 older ships. Hughes also proposed a 10-year naval holiday during which no new ships would be built. At the end of the Washington conference tonnage ratios for the capital ships of the leading naval powers were set at 5 for the US, 5 for Britain, 3 for Japan, and 1.7 for France and Italy.

The Washington conference was also much concerned with Pacific and Far Eastern questions. This conference produced the so-called Nine-Power regarding China, which pledged its signatories “to respect the sovereignty, the independence, and the territorial and administrative integrity of China.” [Buckley, 152] This was meaningless rhetoric, since China was at this time divided into contending warlord regimes. Japan occupied Manchuria in 1931 in an action that can be seen as the beginning of World War II.

The United States emerged from the Washington Conference as the big loser. The British were economically exhausted and unable to match US fleet construction. Japan lacked the industrial base necessary to keep pace. If the construction of the 15 new battleships had been carried through, the US would have assumed naval supremacy by the second half of the 1920’s. This would have been the case even if the British had kept a nominal lead in battleships, because many British units would have been obsolete and inferior. In particular, if US naval building had proceeded at this pace through the 1920’s and into the 1930’s, there is reason to believe that Japan might have been deterred from undertaking the Pearl Harbor attack.

Under the terms of the treaty eventually ratified by the US Senate, the US scrapped 15 pre-dreadnoughts and abandoned plans for 15 modern superdreadnought battleships with 16-inch guns. These were the most modern keels given up by any nation. UK and Japan merely agreed to scrap some old ships and then not to build up beyond the limits prescribed.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7a748d  No.150825

File: 4924625359f0e2f⋯.jpg (410.9 KB, 1600x1358, 800:679, Washington_Conference_Wash….jpg)

File: 41dd14d71489c23⋯.jpg (112 KB, 577x720, 577:720, Washington_Naval_Conferenc….jpg)

File: d410082ffb1ef85⋯.jpg (113.85 KB, 747x592, 747:592, 6092253_orig.jpg)

As the US Navy General Board forwarded this prophetic protest to Secretary Hughes: “These fifteen capital ships (building) brought Japan to the Conference. Scrap them and she will return home free to pursue untrammeled her aggressive program….If these fifteen ships be stricken from the Navy list, our task may not be hopeless; but the temptation to Japan to take a chance becomes very great. [Wheeler, p.56] The US was left with a hollow navy — inadequate to defend such points as the Philippines and Hawaii.

The outbreak of World War II in the Pacific was delayed but also made more likely. After December 7, 1941, there was a short burst of revived interest in the Washington Conference, which was identified in retrospect as one of the contributing factors of US Pacific vulnerability and relative naval weakness. One observer, the writer H.M. Robinson, judged that the conference “was in reality one of the costliest bits of diplomatic blundering that ever befell the United States….In a comic script, the United States was cast as the premiere stripteaseuse, a peace-loving but weak-minded creature who could always draw enthusiastic applause by wantonly denuding herself in the presence of her enemies.” [see Fantastic Interim (New York, 1943)]

Naval officers and military professionals were embittered by what they rightly saw as a sell-out. “To Navy critics of the Washington Conference and its successor, the London Naval Arms Limitation Conference of 1930, the decades of what became known as the “Washington system” and the “treaty navy” were years of strategic drift and dangerous vulnerability in which a gutted force could not back declared national policy.” [Baer, 94]

After the Washington Conference Hughes claimed that its result “ends, absolutely ends, the race in competition of naval armaments.” This turned out to be as fatuous as the claim that World War I had been the war to end all wars.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7a748d  No.150826

File: b1447dc62cecd5e⋯.jpg (70.02 KB, 470x554, 235:277, WarPlanRed.jpg)

War Plan Red

Fortunately the entire US government was not as deluded as Hughes. During these same years planners in the War and Navy Departments and in the Joint Board of the two services were elaborating contingency plans for defending the United States against Britain and Japan, the two main partners in the Washington naval treaties. One of the results of this planning was War Plan Red, the United States war plan for use against the British Empire.

War Plan Red

War Plan Red, primary and secondary lines of attack against British

Before World War I, US planners had developed a color code for planning purposes. The US was designated as Blue, Germany as Black, Japan as Orange, Mexico as Green, and Britain as Red. The British imperial dominions of Canada and Australia/New Zealand were given the color codes of Crimson and Scarlet.

War Plan Red assumed a US conflict against the Red Empire in which Red was seeking to eliminate Blue as a world trade competitor and to deprive Blue of the freedom of the seas. Red’s war aims would include the attempt to seize and retain the Panama Canal. According to one version of the Red Plan, “The most probable cause of war between RED and BLUE is the constantly increasing BLUE economic penetration and commercial expansion into regions formerly dominated by RED trade, to such extent as eventually to menace RED standards of living and to threaten economic ruin….The foreign policy of BLUE…is primarily concerned with the advancement of the foreign trade of BLUE and demands equality of treatment in all political dependencies and backward countries, and unrestricted access to sources of raw materials. In this particular it comes into conflict with the foreign policies of RED.”

The plan offers this view of how hostilities might begin: “It is not believed likely that Blue, when relations become strained, will be likely to take the initiative in declaring war. At the same time, Red, in order to preserve an appearance before the world as a non-aggressor, will likely refrain from declaring war on Blue and will make every effort to provoke Blue into acts of hostility. For these reasons it is considered probable that neither will issue a formal declaration of war, but, after hostilities break out, each, in accordance with its constitutional procedure, will formally recognize that a state of war exists between them.”

The planners judged that “the great majority of the Blue nation possesses an anti-Red tradition and it is believed that the Blue government would experience little difficulty in mobilizing public sentiment in favor of the vigorous prosecution of the war, once hostilities begin.”

Blue’s biggest priority was to cut Crimson off from effective Red support. This required the seizure of “Red bases in the western North Atlantic, the West Indies, and the Caribbean.” The great issue was “the influence of Blue naval forces in retarding and restricting the development of Red land and air forces on Crimson soil.” The most important strategic priority for Blue at the outbreak of war would be the capture of Halifax, Nova Scotia, which was the naval base the Royal Navy would require for operations against Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, as well as for establishing Red naval supremacy in the western Atlantic. It was estimated at the time that the British Empire could eventually put over 8 million troops in the field. War Plan Red embodied Blue’s intention to prevent Red from initially delivering more than 100,000 troops per month to Crimson. The plan includes explicit authorization for Blue submarine warfare against Red shipping.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7a748d  No.150857

World War II in the Pacific: Britain’s Japanese Gambit

From June, 1941 on, the US was operating under a war plan known as Rainbow Five, the US-British Commonwealth Joint Basic War Plan. The explicit content of this plan was, Germany first. “Allied strategy in the Far East will be defensive”, the plan stated. The United States would not add to its military strength in the Pacific theatre. Two months before Pearl Harbor the War Department, impacted by Rainbow Five, was planning the abandonment of not just the Philippines, but Wake and Guam as well.

Behind this strategy lurked a fiendish British plot against the United States: the entire area between India and South America was marked for conquest by Japan. Germany first was a reasonable strategy, but total denial of forces and supplies for the Southwest Pacific was quite another matter, and a suicidal strategic folly. Averell Harriman, then in London with Churchill, referred to Indo-China, Australasia, Polynesia and Micronesia as a “vast, doomed area”. The Japanese, according to this London strategy, were to be permitted to take over the entire Pacific basin while the war in Europe was being fought to a conclusion. Then, in the late forties, after the Japanese had fortified, consolidated, and otherwise strengthened their hold on this myriad of islands, the United States would return to the Pacific and conduct an unending series of frontal amphibious assaults, storming each and every fortified island, all the way to the final assault to Dai Nippon itself. The Japanese were expected, according to their Shinto-Bushido profile, never to surrender, but to fight to the last man, including on their home islands. According to this British scenario, the war in the Pacific was to have lasted until about 1955, with millions of dead on the two sides. The British approach to the war in Europe was to promote in every way possible an endless mutual bloodletting by Russians and Germans. In the Pacific, their plan called for a colossal American-Japanese hecatomb. This would have greatly enhanced the relative power of the British Empire in the postwar world.

The British had assured the US that Singapore could hold for at least 6 months, but it fell to the Japanese on Feb. 15, 1942 with the Gen. Percival’s biggest surrender of British troops in history. How much was bungling, and how much was treachery?

Churchill began to argue that the Japanese would now turn away from Australia and concentrate instead on the conquest of India. Churchill demanded that the US buildup in the Pacific be transferred to the British command in Southeast Asia under Lord Louis Mountbatten. MacArthur convinced Roosevelt to refuse. In late March, 1942 Japanese Admiral Nagumo struck at British naval forces around Ceylon. The British ran away, with some battleships retreating to the east coast of Africa.

MacArthur’s biggest problem in countering the British sabotage was to defend Australia, the key industrial power and vast staging area still in allied hands. His first task was to jettison the defeatist war plan which the British Imperial staff had sold to the Australian military leadership. As MacArthur recounts:

MacArthur-Curtin

US General Douglas MacArthur and Australian Prime Minister John Curtin meet at Parliament House on 26 March 1942.

“Having been witness to the Japanese conquest of Hong Kong, Thailand, Malaya, Rabat, and the Northern Solomons, the Australian chiefs of staff understandably had been thinking and planning only defensively. They had traced a line generally along the Darling River, from Brisbane, midway up the eastern shoreline, to Adelaide on the south coast. This would be defended to the last breath. Such a plan, however, involved the sacrifice of three-quarters or more of the continent, the great northern and western reaches of the land. Behind this so-called Brisbane Line were the four or five most important cities and a large proportion of the population — the heart of Australia. As the areas to the north fell to the enemy, detailed plans were made to withdraw from New Guinea and lay desolate the land above the Brisbane Line. Industrial plants and utilities in Northern Territory would be dynamited, military facilities would be leveled, port installations rendered useless and irreparable.”

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7a748d  No.150858

“The concept was purely one of passive defense, and I felt it would result only in eventual defeat. Even if so restrictive a scheme were tactically successful, its result would be to trap us indefinitely on an island continent ringed by conquered territories and hostile ocean, bereft of all hope of ever assuming the offensive.” [Reminiscences, p. 152]

MacArthur protested to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington that “such a concept is fatal to every possibility of ever assuming the offensive, and even if tactically successful will bottle us up on the Australian continent, probably permanently. I am determined to abandon the plan completely.” [Whitney, p. 64]

MacArthur proposed to move the first line of defense of Australia more than a thousand miles to the north, from Brisbane on the Tropic of Capricorn to the Owen Stanley mountain range in Papua, eastern New Guinea. This thrust also impelled US forces to defend Guadalcanal, whose conquest by Japan would have threatened a cutting of the sealane between Australia and the United States, which was MacArthur’s vital supply line. Another part of the incipient US-Australian offensive was the naval battle of the Coral Sea, in which a Japanese aircraft carrier was sunk and the aura of invincibility enjoyed by the Japanese fleet after Pearl Harbor shattered.

At the time MacArthur arrived in Australia there was less than one US division there, and Churchill was holding most of the Australian army in North Africa. At one point Churchill pledged that he would only release the Australian divisions from the Middle East if the Australian continent were actually invaded – since by then, as MacArthur stressed, the defense of Australia would have been a hopeless cause.

MacArthur was able to pursue his strategy with a great economy in the lives of his men. This was because he generally avoided frontal attacks in favor of the flanking envelopment. This allowed him to do more with less. The navy and marines just at Okinawa, for example, lost almost 50,000 men. MacArthur conquered New Guinea, (what is today Indonesia) and the Philippines, going from Melbourne to Tokyo, with just 90,000 casualties. (By contrast, US losses at Anzio were 72,000, and in the battle of the Bulge, 107,000.)

MacArthur succeeded against a powerful and determined enemy because he was able to adapt the flanking envelopment to the specific conditions of the war in the Pacific. MacArthur called his strategy leap-frogging, and contrasted it most sharply to the so-called island-hopping, frontal assaults of the navy and marines. MacArthur’s problems were exacerbated by his frequent numerical inferiority to the Japanese concentrations he faced. In the middle of 1942 these problems were discussed at a war council attended by MacArthur, Eighth Army commander General Kruger, Admiral Halsey, and the Australian commander, MacArthur later wrote: “To push back the Japanese perimeter of conquest by direct pressure against the mass of enemy-occupied islands would be a long and costly effort. My staff worried about Rabaul and other strongpoints.” Rabaul, on New Britain, north of New Guinea, was in fact one of the most formidable fortresses of the Pacific, defended by 100,000 Japanese veterans, and prepared, like Verdun, to exact a fearful price from any attacker. In the war council, one general remarked: “I just don’t see how we can take these strongpoints with our limited forces.” MacArthur replied: “Well, let’s just say that we don’t take them. In fact, gentlemen, I don’t want them.” MacArthur added that he thoroughly agreed with the objection adding that he “did not intend to take them. (He) intended to envelop them, incapacitate them, apply the hit ’em where they ain’t – let ’em die on the vine philosophy. I explained this was the very opposite of what was termed island-hopping, which is the gradual pushing back of the enemy by direct frontal pressure, with the consequent heavy casualties which would certainly be involved. There would be no need for storming the mass of the island held by the enemy. Island-hopping, I said, with extravagant losses and slow progress, is not my idea of how to end the war as soon and as cheaply as possible.”

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

b30b12  No.152859

>>149114

Interdasting.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e0aaad  No.154787

File: b17fa55fde33d3f⋯.jpeg (35.26 KB, 600x435, 40:29, external_content_duckduck….jpeg)

File: c62aee3d1f5ce66⋯.jpeg (46.88 KB, 640x509, 640:509, external_content_duckduck….jpeg)

File: a004e4bee718910⋯.jpg (61.73 KB, 322x426, 161:213, Niihau_Zero_2.jpg)

One of the anons above suggested that I look into evidence of Japanese planes being at Pearl Harbor. So far I have only been able to find photographs of 3 planes that are alleged to have crashed on that day. Can any others be found?

I'm now in the process of updating the document.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e0aaad  No.154788

Missing Japanese Planes and Airmen

There were supposedly 29 Japanese planes shot down according to the Wikipedia entry on Pearl Harbor. The Wikipedia page of Kenneth M. Taylor1 who claims to have shot down 4 Japanese planes additionally claims that US aircraft shot down a total of 10 Japanese planes.

This tells us that 19 aircraft were shot down by AAA. These along with their pilots ought to have been found on or near land. Taylor’s page describes two air battles taking place above American airports. In one of these he claims to have shot down 2 dive bombers and damaged a 3rd. The 3rd one was listed as a probable kill, indicating that it was damaged, and may have crashed later on. This means that the first 2 dive bombers should have hit the ground or sea on or near the airport. If they had limped on like the 3rd plane they would have been listed as damaged.

Then, there should be at least 21 Japanese airmen and airplane wrecks. However, there exist photographs of only 3 wrecked Japanese planes, with the following markings:

1. BII-120 “Niihau Zero” crash landed on Niihau island

2. AI-154 crashed into Building 52 (Ordinance Machine Shop) on Oahu2

3. AII-356 crashed somewhere into the ocean

There remain large pieces of the 1st one, and the pilot’s remains have been repatriated to Japan, so it has much more documentation, than the other 2. The remains of the last 2 wrecks have been destroyed. There also appears to have been no efforts made to repatriate the remains of the pilots.

Let’s examine these in detail to see if any of the three represent concrete evidence of a Japanese presence at Pearl Harbor on the day of the attack.

to be continued ..

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

f16f3c  No.155120

File: bcc1dd84777515f⋯.png (1.03 MB, 1896x1150, 948:575, Remnants_of_the_Niihau_Zer….png)

File: 1fc0e343facf603⋯.jpg (260.14 KB, 800x530, 80:53, grave_of_nishikaichi.jpg)

File: fd2cb7535fbefca⋯.jpg (111.33 KB, 620x340, 31:17, niihau_crashsite_b.jpg)

The Niihau Zero

A the story as described on histroynet.com could be summarized as follows:

A Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero fighter plane piloted by Shigenori Nishikaichi engaged in combat with some American Curtiss P-36A fighters, and developed a fuel leak. The pilot decides to go to land at Niihau, one of the Hawaiian islands that the Japanese mistakenly believe to be uninhabited, because it is closer than the aircraft carriers. Nishikaichi can’t find a landing spot because the locals have been very diligent in blocking possible landing sites, so he has to crash land into an empty pasture near a house.

Native Hawaiians rush to the aid of the Japanese airman, pull him out of the plane along with some secret papers. The pilot returned to his plane and set it on fire but it did not spread. The pilot was treated as a guest initially but by December 12 a fight erupted over the secret papers that resulted in the Japanese pilot being killed.1

Of the 3 crashes, it was the Niihau Zero that left the most evidence as we can see in the photographs. A large piece of it is still around as shown in Figure 12, and a grave site exists for the pilot, shown in Figure 13.

In spite of this evidence, there exists no proof that the Niihau Zero is associated with the Pearl Harbor attack because the narrative associated with the plane is false. There are 3 items that are fantastic and unbelievable.

First, if the Japanese believed that the island of Niihau was uninhabited, they would have less information about the Hawaiian Islands than was available in the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911. A quote from the encyclopedia:

Niihau, the most westerly of the inhabited islands, is 18 m. W. by S. of Kauai.1

(to be continued)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

01159b  No.155919

>>155120

Second, a fight erupted over some papers on the airplane. It simply, does not make sense to put secret papers on a fighter plane that is going to be carrying out combat missions over enemey territory. Is it possible that the papers were of navigational nature mapping out where the carriers were? This doesn’t make sense either, because several days later it the carriers would have moved and the maps would not have been useful.

Third, the pilot tried to destroy his plane. A possible reason for this, is that the A6M Zero plane contained advanced technology that they did not want to fall into American hands. In this case it would have made more sense to land the plane in the water, then for the pilot to get out and swim to shore. This would have also taken care of the secret papers. Recovering a plane a few miles off the coast would have been difficult or impossible before the invention of modern Scuba diving equipment1. Therefore landing the plane on land was not done due to a fuel leak reducing the range, but for some other reason.

The evidence left by the Niihau Incident tells us that there is some basis of reality for this story. The story seems to be more consistent with an incident related to espionage activities rather than an airplane seeking a safe place to land after being damaged in an attack.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

01159b  No.155920

>>155919

In an espionage scenario, the Zero might have been used to ferry documents, photographs or other information. It might have landed in Niihau to meet with a contact. Somebody on the island, might have become aware of Japanese planes or of planes of unknown origin landing and taking off from the island, and taken steps to prevent this. The HistoryNet article says:

With admirable foresight, Niihau’s manager had ordered potential landing sites to be heavily plowed or studded with rock piles.

Then it describes how the Zero might have become damaged and unable to take off:

As the Japanese pilot flared out for a landing in this benevolent private fiefdom, the Zero’s wheels struck a wire fence, and the plane nosed in hard.

This wire fence might have been part of the efforts to sabotage potential landing sites. Some of them were sabotaged in obvious ways, but this one was sabotaged by wires which might have been difficult to see. They laid a trap for the pilot. This is why he later tries to destroy the plane. He didn’t plan on it being there. It also explains why there was someone there ready to help him out of the plane, and why the pilot’s papers were taken away and he struggled to get them back.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / abcu / ausneets / choroy / hydrus / in / miku / random / s ]