A blog containing tequila and truth,
science and skepticism, culture and
cynicism, wordsmithing and wonder,
and an abundance of alliteration.
There is apparently strong historical case that top US officials:* knew of the impending attack* had antagonized the Japanese with the idea of encouraging them to attack* ordered the fleet at Pearl Harbor into a configuration which would be the most heavily damaged by an air attack* kept officers at Pearl Harbor in the dark about the latest intelligence, and generally out of the loopCan anyone comment on whether this is just a wacky conspiracy theory?
It's a whacky conspiracy theory. Pearl Harbor was one of the most well-defended bases we had. If the base had been as alert as it should have been, the Japanese attack would have been blunted, if not repelled. The people who ran the base, and some of the people who supervised them, screwed up.Sorry to give such a short answer, but I get impatient with nonsense like this. The dictum that you should never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence applies here in spades.
(Gaah... this is why I should never do short comments; it's too easy to hit "publish" without really making sure that it's what I want to say...)I should be honest and say that this sounds like a bit of a glib dismissal. Have you actually encountered this theory before and looked at the evidence, or are you just assuming it's a wacky conspiracy theory because it goes against common knowledge?
I don't know what you mean by "encounter", but yes, I've certainly heard from these folks. Their arguments consist of the usual selective attention to facts you find in conspiracy theories. They behave as though things like human error, inter-service rivalry, and other forms of territoriality didn't exist or were somehow pat explanations. I worked with the DoD for almost 25 years. I can believe just about any level of stupidity out of such an organization. It's not because the DoD (or more properly, its predecessor the War Department) has a particular problem with such things. It's just that they happen in big organizations, particularly when they aren't occupied performing their primary purpose (which, for the War Dept., was fighting wars). People often do things that benefit themselves at the expense of the organizations they work for. They often just plain screw up due to lack of knowledge, training, or interest.If that all sounds glib, oh well. I only have so much time to waste on foolish-sounding theories about things that happened before I was born, and precipitated events that almost certainly would have happened anyway.
I find that reaction... fascinating [raises eyebrow]. It will take me some time to properly digest it.
Your argument seems to be, if I'm understanding it correctly, that you already have an accounting which satisfies you, therefore you see no need to address the specific evidence which appears to contradict that accounting.Is that a fair summary?
Post a Comment