How the Pearl Harbor attacks could have been prevented

[crusader911]

If the US government , never forced Japan through "gun boat " diplomacy to sign unequal treaties "at the point of a gun" in the late 1800s which in turn led to some Japanese pushing for militarism because they never wanted to be humiliated again by the US government,

If the US government had never invaded and had a genocidal occupation of the Philippines,

If the US government had never planned to have a war with Japan called the War Plan Orange,

If the US government never invaded and occupied the Spanish colonies in the Pacific,

If the US government had never invaded and occupied Hawaii,

If the US government never supported the chinese military against the Japanese government,

If the US government never imposed embargoes on Japan,

If in July 1941, FDR did not freeze Japanese assets in the United States,

If the US government did not instigate the Japanese as Henry L. Stimson and the McCollum Memo confessed

If the US government heeded to the wishes of Admiral Richardson, commander of the U.S fleet, and not moved the American fleet to Pearl Harbor,

the Pearl Harbor attack would never have happened.

The US government instigated Japan by freezing Japanese assets,

imposing embargoes,

helping the Chinese military against Japan

and as the McCollum Memo from US naval intelligence and Stimson, the Secretary of War admitted that the US government did everything short of all out war, to instigate the Japanese government to attack,

giving the reason that if the Japanese attacked first, that would unite the American people for war, since the American people did not want another world war since WW1.

Would the US government have "looked the other way" if the Japanese government militarily interfered in North America and the Philippines when the US government was involved in its imperial expansion through North America and the Pacific ?

Similarly, the US government's involvement in supporting the military in China against Japan did not "sit well" with the government of Japan.

The reason the Japanese government expanded beyond China/Korea is due to the interference of the Allies in China, the so the Japanese government decided to take the western colonial posssessions of the Allies in South East Asia in order for the colonial possesssions to serve as "bargaining chips" in a future negotiated peace settlement with the Allies.


Regarding the atom bombing of Japan, the following is what most people believe:

(1) Hiroshima was given adequate warning
(2) Hiroshima was of military value
(3) Japanese resistance was not crumbling
(4) Japan was not trying to surrender

Comment :

And lets say Al-Qaeda had the same policy of the Truman Administration and Al-Qaeda did the following :

(1) Warned the Pentagon of a pending attack
(2) Only targeted the Pentagon
(3) US government's resistance to withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia was not crumbling
(4) the US government was not wanting to surrender its bases in Saudi Arabia

My Question is : Would the US government then say that Al-Qaeda was not a terrorist organization if all four points above took place ? off course not.

Al-Qaeda's total disregard of human life can be seen from the following conclusion derived from Osama Bin Laden's fatwas ( please note: i do not agree with Bin Laden's reason for targeting civilians ) :


(1) Osama Bin Laden read about the US government fire and atom bombing Japan in 1945

when Japan was already defeated as early as July of 1944 when Tojo resigned and Japan was negotiating concessions to the communists

but FDR did not care about communists either killing tens of millions of civilians or that the crushing of Japan enabled communism to expand in Asia resulting in hundreds of thousands of US soldiers either dying horrifying deaths or being maimed, disfigured, deformed, blinded or paralyzed for life during the cold war.

(2) Osama Bin Laden read about US/Allied POWs in Japan and hundreds of thousands of Japanese children being terrorized, tortured and burned alive in the US government's fire and atom bombings of Japan

and Bin Laden must have concluded that if FDR/Truman did not care about the plight of their own US soldiers captive in Japan who were being killed by the US government's atom and fire bombings of Japan

and since FDR/Truman did not care about the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese children and babies, why should Osama bin Laden care about lives when strategic goals were more important

( this is how both state and non-state terrorists think and I do not agree with the way they think ).

Background to the atom bombing :

Even though the US government forced Japan at the "point of a gun" to sign unequal treaties in the late 1800s, the Japanese people, even as late as 1937, were sympathetic to the plight of five American civilians who were wounded due to an unintentional attack by a Japanese naval aircraft on a US gunboat in China.

Numerous christian Japanese students sent christmas cards including letters, profusely apologizing for the unfortunate incident, on top of the millions ( in today's dollars) sent by the Japanese government to compensate the US government.

Other letters from Japanese individuals and organizations contained gifts of money along with expressions of regret.


Even the people of Nagasaki (recipients of the second atom bomb) were sending money to the US embassy in Nagasaki for the USS Panay incident.

It is apparent that radical elements within Japanese society who wanted to drive the US out of China, due to US gun boat diplomacy, were behind the attack on USS Panay and other incidents in order to draw the US into greater conflict with Japan.


Addressing the above points :

General claim 1 : Hiroshima was given adequate warning:

No matter how many warnings Hiroshima was supposedly given, the US government should have known, as in the case of Katrina, thousands of people might not be able to move due to illness, being handicapped and the poor and destitute would not have been able to evacuate or realize the seriousness of an atomic attack because no warnings were given about radiation poisoning.

General claim 2 : Hiroshima was of military value:

Hiroshima was of military value ?

while Tokyo which planned the Pearl Harbor attack was not ?

The reason Hiroshima was spared conventional bombing is because it did not have prime military installations;

and having the bomb explode above the city was to cause maximum damage to as much of the city as possible where school children were in school learning while the bomb was dropped

and the Nagasaki bomb was dropped over a church: St. Mary’s Cathedral.

The Nagasaki atom bomb burned alive the nuns and christians in Nagasaki.

In April 1945, US General Groves was instructed to pick targets for the nuclear bombs:

"To enable us to assess accurately the effects of the bomb, the targets should not have been previously damaged by air raids."

Four cities were chosen, including Hiroshima and Kyoto. War Secretary Stimson vetoed Kyoto, and Nagasaki was substituted. ( Leslie Groves, Now it Can be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project, 1962 : Page 267 )


General claim 3 : Japanese resistance was not crumbling.

Resistance to an invasion of Japan ? off course, the Japanese would resist an invasion on their homeland, just as Americans would resist if Japan invaded the US homeland.

One wonders why the Japanese did not surrender unconditionally after the fire bombing of Japanese cities.

Would the US government have surrendered if the Japanese fire bombed US cities ? off course not.

So by the same reasoning, fire bombing Japanese cities only made the Japanese government more determined to not surrender.

The US government makes it difficult for the enemy to negotiate because the US government is more interested in crushing the enemy than negotiating.

If the US government had accepted the conditional surrender of the Japanese instead of insisting on unconditional surrender, millions of lives could have been saved by the war coming to an end quickly.

As for those Japanese who committed war crimes, its very difficult to prosecute those when the US government deliberately fire bombed numerous Japanese cities knowing fully well that hundreds of thousands of civilians., children and babies would be burned alive.

General claim 4 : Japan was not trying to surrender.

Other than the fact that if the roles were reversed and Japan was fire bombing and atom bombing US cities, would the US government have surrendered ? off course not, due to the concept of pride and an honorable surrender if surrender was ever contemplated

just as in the case of Vietnam and even then it took over 50000 American lives for the US government to finally surrender in Vietnam.

But even with the humiliation of defeat and wanting an honorable end to the war, the Japanese government did want to surrender conditionally.

What if President Truman, on the night before the atom bomb was dropped, dreamt of screaming Japanese children and babies being burned alive and dying in agony; do you think President Truman would have accepted the conditional surrender of the Japanese, instead of demanding unconditional surrender ?

How can innocent children and babies be responsible for the decisions made by their government ?

If your loved ones did a crime, does the US government have the right to arrest you, if you were not involved in the crime ?

The US government should not collectively punish and sacrifice the lives of innocent children and babies for the "greater good" because that is the same reasoning of terrorists and that is how terrorists think;

Lets say you were Japanese; I am sure you will agree that the US government should not punish you and your family for the wrong done by the Japanese government, if you and your family were living in Hiroshima or Nagasaki before the atom bombs were dropped.

if some criminal in texas fires a homemade missile into mexico; mexico does not have the right to shoot a missile at your house, just because you and that criminal in texas are both Americans.

Why do some say the Japanese were fighting a total war when the US government was the one that was fire bombing scores of Japanese cities ?

You can say it is total war if the Japanese invaded Hawaii and occupied it, if the Japanese invaded the US homeland and fire bombed cities, but none of that happened; so the Japanese, after hawaii and taking over US colonies in the pacific, were actually defeated and fighting to survive and it definitely was not total war.

The US government fights wars according to either “manufactured fear” or a cost/benefit analysis and not according to how dangerous the enemy is, meaning, all wars can be prevented or avoided and especially avoided when the enemy is the most dangerous and that is why the US government did not directly confront the Soviets even though the Soviets were invading and occupying countries

and President John Adams avoided war with France, even though the French government was spoiling for a fight with the US.

Even when the Soviets, Chinese, North Korean and North Vietnamese governments were directly and indirectly killing tens of thousands of American soldiers in horrible ways and horribly paralyzing, blinding, maiming, disfiguring or deforming tens of thousands of American soldiers or even torturing many American soldiers, not once did the US government ask for the unconditional surrender of the Soviets, Chinese, North Koreans or the North Vietnamese.

But much weaker enemies like World War Two Japan, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are subject to either indiscriminate bombing or targeted bombing or targeted assassinations in which up to hundreds of thousands of children and babies are collaterally killed and terrorized and even burned alive due to the US government's atom bombs in the case of World War Two Japan which was destroyed by fire and atom bombs in 1945, allowing communism to greatly expand in Asia which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of innocent civilians.

Japan was so weak it could only destroy the US fleet in Hawaii but could not occupy Hawaii or invade the US mainland and by July of 1944, Japan was defeated completely resulting in Tojo resigning and the Japanese making painful concessions to the Soviet communists hoping the Soviets could broker a peace between Japan and the US.

But FDR/Truman were not interested in a negotiated peace with Japan in July of 1944 because the US government knew it could invade and occupy Japan.

Instead of a negotiated peace and conditional surrender of Japan in July 1944, FDR/Truman did not care about the plight of US/Allied POWs who were in prison in Japan and who were subject to fire and atom bombs by the US government,

and FDR/Truman did not care about the plight of hundreds of thousands of Japanese children and babies who were subject to the horrors of being burned alive in the atom and fire bomb destruction of Japan

and FDR/Truman did not care that the destruction of Japan would enable communism to expand in Asia which in turn resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of innocent civilians and the horrifying deaths of tens of thousands of our beloved soldiers or the horrifying torturous blinding, paralysis, deformities, deformation and disfiguring injuries that tens of thousands of our beloved soldiers suffered during the Cold War due to the destruction of both Germany and Japan which enabled the Communists to greatly expand their power.

Yes, the US government could have avoided and prevented wars with Japan, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, but the cost/benefit analysis showed that the US government could carry out a profitable war for the warfare corporations and institutions while the cost was minimal and in the case of Iraq, "selling" the war was easy since the US government pushed the idea that Iraqi oil could pay for the reconstruction of the country.

THE COVERT OPERATIONS IN CAPTURING OSAMA BIN LADEN IN 2011 WAS MUCH CHEAPER, COMPARED TO THE TRILLION DOLLAR WARS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED AGAINST IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

But the US government will first spend trillions before spending millions to solve a problem because trillions is what the rich and powerful friends of the US government need in order to support the re-election of the US government and once, at least a few billion is spent, then the US government will try to solve the problem with millions of dollars.

Its easy for the US government to "manufacture fear" especially if the "enemy" attacks us, as in the case of the Pearl Harbor attacks and the attacks on the World Trade Center and when fear can be manufactured then the cost/benefit analysis is just an option and not required in convincing the public, that it is essential to "loot" the treasury of trillions of hard earned taxpayer dollars and give the hard earned tax payer money to the US government’s rich and powerful friends in the corporate welfare system of the warfare corporations and institutions,

while millions of Americans die every few years from cancer alone and the US government at the same time is cutting cancer research grants since the money is going to the rich and powerful in the military/industrial complex who are “laughing all the way to the bank” while the average American is seeing one of their loved ones or friends dying of cancer due to cancer research being cut :

http://www.aacr.org/home/public--med...h-funding.aspx

[Napolitanic Wars]

The short version:

[Barrex]

How the Pearl Harbor attacks could have been prevented?

You should have listend to Peruvian ambassador.