![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
How bizarre is it that the Wiki article here states Prior Knowledge and in fact Prococations to cause the attack on US forces by the Japanese is called a "fringe theory?" The belief that FDR and Co. orchestrated (caused) a Japanese attack to allow the US to enter a politically unpopular War (WWII) not only is not "fringe" it is generally accepted at true by most any legitimate Historian still alive. Don't bother trying to improve this article by adding a section or anything else, because the powers that be at Wiki have this article just exactly how they want it. The main vandal to this article is Binksternet. This article is the definition of HOGWASH. Bugatti35racer ( talk) 05:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I think myself and a few others started the framework for the wiki, and I'm happy its still here. Maybe when I get some time, I'd like to update it and add some missing information as some parts are kind of incomplete. After we debated Stinnett, Villa, Wilford etc. we wanted to get some of this information out there. Best... (Scottsle) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:4203:590:2D91:5B07:E6A5:1BBA ( talk) 05:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Suggest that Trekphiler spend a little time reading WIkipedia policy on the subjects involved before he talks foolishly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Quoting:
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. Montestruc ( talk) 02:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense, your statement about being neutral is absolute complete and total nonsense.
It is simple historical fact, very well documented that Admiral J. O. Richardson in command of the US Fleet in the Pacific explicitly warned FDR that the most probable first move of the Japanese was an attack on Pearl Harbor. That was in early 1941, FDR sacked him over it.
Being an FDR sycophant and excuse maker is the epitome of not being neutral. Deliberate political supression of legitimate criticism of US politicians is totally against Wikipedia neutrality policy. Montestruc ( talk) 16:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Your editing of the page is not even slightly neutral. You act as if a progressive new deal democrat point of view is “neutral” which is ridiculous.
Richardson’s criticism and complaining that FDR’s policies were stupid was what got him fired.
Objectivly Richardson was right and FDR wrong, while you keep trying to supress facts that make FDR look like the fool, jackass, and charlatan he actually was.
It is a very well documented fact that FDR was warned by a professional naval officer that the Pearl Harbor raid was likely some 10 months in advance, yet you work to suppress any honest discussion that does not whitewash FDR.
You have no business editing wikipedia, you are just too biased.
I would be unsurprised if you draw a salary as an academic historian and do this on the side to suppress information that conflicts with your mealticket. I bet that is why you and your ilk refuse to use your own name and stand behind what you say.
Montestruc ( talk) 12:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No I WILL NOT move this to another page. You being called out for your unprofessional bias and politically motivated vandalism ON THIS ARTICLE belongs ON THIS PAGE, where people who read this page can see it.
That is so damn typical of a progressive. Whitewash, obfuscate, lie like a rug on the floor. Dodge criticism, evade truth.
This discussion stays here. Montestruc ( talk) 13:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I suggest amending the page to make clear that, even if the Pearl Harbor attack had not occurred, the attack on the Philippine Islands (a few hours after Pearl Harbor) would still have occurred, and that would have ensured war with the United States. The notion that thwarting the attack on Pearl Harbor (even if possible) would have prevented war with Japan, or made war less likely, is quite preposterous. The Japanese strategic plan required occupying the Dutch East Indies, for its oil, rubber, minerals, and foodstuffs. For access to the Dutch East Indies, securing the Philippine Islands was deemed essential. Pearl Harbor was a sideshow intended to hobble American response to this strategic plan, but was not an essential part of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoGunChuck ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I didn't miss the point at all. I was observing that there was no rational basis for FDR to do such a thing, since the Japanese strategic plan was fairly obvious, and would require an attack on the Philippines, which would ensure war with the U.S. anyway. Destruction of some antiquated battleships at Pearl Harbor achieved practically nothing, compared to the elimination of Allied air power in the Philippines, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies (achieved by the 2:1 superiority of Japan in air power). Pearl Harbor was certainly not essential to the Japanese strategic plan, and the Philippine attack was contemporaneous with what happened at Pearl Harbor. I'm just saying that these conspiracy nuts have tunnel vision if they think that absent Pearl Harbor, the U.S. would not have been at war on December 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoGunChuck ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Trekphiler’s notions of naval strategy are not really very sophisticated. Had Japan attacked south and utterly ignored Pearl Harbor and tried to lure the US Fleet into a fight in and arround the Philippines, the US Navy — had they been stupid enough to fall for it— would have lost far more ships and men in deeper waters where recovery was impossible. Japan by concentrating all her naval aircraft carriers (as was SOP for them) was vastly stronger than the 100/100/60 formula of the Washington treaty. Their fleet in the Pacific was far stronger than ours if concentrated as it was supposed to be, and used judiciously. Read Shattered Sword, read On the Tredmill to Pearl Harbor.
The Pearl Harbor attack almost did not happen, Yamamoto had to threaten to resign to get it approved.
Trekphiler you are really not very well educated on the subject. Montestruc ( talk) 18:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Trekphiler (why do all these supposedly supporters of “honest history” seem to need to use handles that have no relation to who they are?, while I and some others use our right name and stand behind what we say, , ?) wrote “hitting a fleet at anchor is a great deal easier than at sea, even if losses in deep water would be greater (a fact Nimitz & Rochefort both expressly acknowledged, tho the conspiracy nuts”
Going directly into pajoratives. So very classy, so very adult. The epitome of neutrality.
Yes indeed it is easier to “hit” a fleet trapped in a shallow harbor as pointed out by Admiral J. O. Richardson to president Roosevelt, where he clearly and explicitly explained to FDR in person at a meeting in the White House about 10 months before Pearl Harbor. FDR sacked Richardson for it.
I pointed out clearly that intervetion by the USN Pacific fleet in support of the Phillippines was unlikely, as it would have been stupid. The IJN would have most likely won such an engagement in late 1941 early 1942 had Pearl Harbor not happened. On the other hand, IJN would not be short on fuel, nor need to worry about that as they had fuel depos in Formosa, while on the Pearl Harbor raid some IJN units were at extreme range and short on fuel.
In any case, what is going on here are persons with progressive political inclinations blatently censoring anyone critical of their heros, especially pointing out serious lapses in judgement by FDR, that are well documented.
Basically Trekphiler is attacking any criticism of FDR as “crackpot” or whatever the pajorative of the day he wishes to use.
Trekphiler is explicitly getting very emotional in unreasoned defense of FDR from quite legitimate criticism.
Admiral Richardson explicitly warned FDR that his policy of moving the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor was dangerous personally in a White House meeting about 10 months before Pearl Harbor.
Read “On the Tredmill to Pearl Harbor” hell read the wikipedia bio of Admiral Richardson. Montestruc ( talk) 06:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
You actions as an editor MUST remain neutral and have a neutral voice. They arn’t that is abundantly clear. You treat new deal democratic progressive propaganda as if it were truth etched in stone by the hand of god.
You don’t have a Pacific fleet, you don’t have a proper instrument to project American political interests in the Pacific rim. FDR almost got our fleet wiped out by him moving the main base in easy reach of the IJN in late 1940. We were lucky the carriers were at sea.
Your “news” evades the issue. You hide your identity behind a false name. You do not stand behind what you do, no one can check to see what your personal or political or financial biases might be.
It is white washing, refusing to be honest. Montestruc ( talk) 13:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Binksternet
For this edit. I think this argument is self-consistent, and there are enough reliable sources at the footnote of referred webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellozeronet ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Taman Turbinton
Taman Turbinton is a student at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and is excavating this season at the site of Gezer. This is his second article with Discerning History.
http://discerninghistory.com/about/
Shows clearly that Mr Turbinton, the author of the article
Binksternet erased reference to, is not at all as Binksternet mendaciously claimed, “self-publishing”
The publishers of the website are Mr. Dan Horn, Mr. Joshua Horn, and Mr. Erik Woodard.
The religious affiliations of the author or publisher or editors of the site are utterly IRRELEVANT, and Binksternet referencing their religious affiliation only goes to show bigotry on the part of Binksternet.
The article Binksternet removed has 37 separate references articles. I have examined several of them all are real well-founded academic sources, all were on point in Terbinton’s work.
These include:
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300061833/secret-world-american-communism
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-lives-of-agnes-smedley-9780195141894?cc=us&lang=en&
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40402938?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.amazon.com/Venona-Secrets-Definitive-Espionage-Classics/dp/1621572951
It is becoming increasingly clear that Binksternet is a religious bigot, has nothing but disrespect for the Wikipedia organization and is in fact should be seen as a malicious politically motivated vandal.
Montestruc (
talk)
12:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Personal attacks? “Ad Hominem” OMG I demonstrate beyond any question whatever that Binksternet misrepresented facts (saying the referenced article was “self-published” when it obviously not as the site has numerous authors, the author of this article IS NOT the editor or publisher.
You lied. That is not “Ad Homiem” it is Binksternet engaging in politically motivated vandalism of wikipedia articles. It is Binksternet deliberatly and maliciously misrepresenting facts on a wikipedia article.
You should be banned.
Montestruc ( talk) 05:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Going back over some past comments, I came across a suggestion the debate should be framed by how & why it originated (a proposal IMO the page could really benefit from). It made me wonder: did this all start as an effort to undermine FDR's social agenda? By discrediting him, did opponents intend to discredit things like Social Security by extension? Is there any evidence either way? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
In it, the 252 group dealing with the Japanese situation in 1941 is open, save for the omission of Section 5, dealing with events from November 1941 through March 1942, and is marked with official finality as "closed for 75 years."[129]
- from the look of it, this comes from a 1981/1982 book which may explain the wording which seems to suggest me 75 years is still a long time away. Yet it's now 2019 and it's obviously been 75 years since 1942, so has section that was kept secret now been made public?
Nil Einne (
talk)
15:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I removed some (possibly) factual editorializing about Stinson's statement, to the effect of what Stinson didn't include in his statement—almost certainly not from the reference which documents the statement. Nearly miraculously, this was written about 8 years by a very recently banned sockpuppeteer. Tapered ( talk) 10:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Quite a few references refer to an author/book without giving the page number or section! See references: 8,9,10,12,14,18, 19,20,21,23,25,46,47,53,59,71,80,81,82,85,123,135. Several references do refer to a range of pages or a section, which I think is reasonable (eg Refs 115,120). Sometimes complicated by more than one edition of a book e.g. hardback and paperback, possibly with different page numbering. And I wonder which authors ("often" cited) cite "Roll T-175" at the National Archives (see Forgeries). Hugo999 ( talk) 01:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the following passage:
Sorge was a german-born Soviet spy who was executed in Japan. Before his execution in early 1942 Dr. Sorge made a complete word confession of his activities to his Japanese captors. The confession was forwarded to the Pentagon in Washington by General MacArthur. The following is a extract from Mr. O’Donnell’s article in the New York Daily News of May 7. 1951:
When the spy’s confession was sent here, somebody in the Pentagon deleted from the original the damning statement by Sorge that he had informed the Kremlin in October, 1941, that the Japs intended to attack Pearl Harbor within 60 days and that he had received thanks for his report and the notice that Washington – Roosevelt, Marshall, Adm. Stark, et al – had been advised of the Japanese intentions. There is no record that this information was acknowledged here. But the (Japanese) police documents make it clear that Stalin & Co. had this accurate information and passed it back to us in return for our information about the impending attack by Germany on Russia. [1] [2] [3]
References
Kent G. Budge initially removed this material with the explanation: "A speech in the Congressional Record from 1981 is neither a primary source, nor neutral, nor reliable." Bornetjbo restored it with the explanation: "if this page is about a conspiracy theory doesn't it look obvious the sources providing information about the conspiracy are going to be fringe ipso facto?". I have removed it again. Fringe theories can be mentioned to the extent they are discussed in reliable sources. Otherwise, there would be free reign to include every conspiracist blog with a pet theory and no way to make a determination which fringe theories are notable enough for inclusion. Are there reliable independent sources that discuss Theobald's views of Sorge or reliable independent sources that discuss the Mr. O’Donnell report? - Location ( talk) 17:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The following quote has been removed multiple times for many "different" reasons, looks like an attempt to shut it down. Read this especially page 53,54 and 55 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2383135?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents Bornetjbo ( talk) 08:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theorists believe Sorge who was a german-born Soviet spy was involved indirectly. He was executed in Japan. Before his execution in early 1942 Dr. Sorge made a complete word confession of his activities to his Japanese captors. [1]The confession was forwarded to the Pentagon in Washington by General MacArthur. The following is a extract from Mr. O’Donnell’s article in the New York Daily News of May 7. 1951:
When the spy’s confession was sent here, somebody in the Pentagon deleted from the original the damning statement by Sorge that he had informed the Kremlin in October, 1941, that the Japs intended to attack Pearl Harbor within 60 days and that he had received thanks for his report and the notice that Washington – Roosevelt, Marshall, Adm. Stark, et al – had been advised of the Japanese intentions. There is no record that this information was acknowledged here. But the (Japanese) police documents make it clear that Stalin & Co. had this accurate information and passed it back to us in return for our information about the impending attack by Germany on Russia. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
"
There are many other sources confirming Sorge warned USA or wanted to warn or knew about Japan plan 1) AN INSTANCE OF TREASON: Ozaki Hotsumi and the Sorge Spy Ring. By Chalmers Johnson. 278 pp. Stanford, California. 2) Shanghai Conspiracy: The Sorge Spy Ring. By Major GeneralCharles A. Willoughby. Preface by General of the Army Douglas MacArthur. New York: Dutton, 1952. 320. - Der Fall Sorge (The Sorge Case). By Hans-Otto Meissner. München: Wilhelm Andermann Verlag, 1955. 346. 3) Target Tokyo: The Story of the Sorge Spy Ring by Gordon W. Prange, Donald M. Goldstein, Katherine V. Dillon 4) Major Charles A. Willoughby asked if the russians did indeed know in advance of the proposed attack on Pearl Harbor, he testified in congress: "Yes, they did get the information." Source: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/congress/Vol35.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornetjbo ( talk • contribs) 08:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
is there any context for this? there is a reference to a "brainwave" without context:
In fact, when the final part of the "14-Part Message" (also called the "one o'clock message") crossed Kramer's desk, he cross-referenced the time (per usual practice, not the brainwave often portrayed) Nappy~enwiki ( talk) 20:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
why are those who advocate the advanced knowledge position reduced to "writers of history" in the lede, as opposed to historians, and why is that list in the lede shortened to individuals who the system would surely prefer you ignore in general (Barnes), rather than individuals who are even mentioned in the article itself, like Thomas Fleming?
Also, why does this article not include any mention of the Chicago Tribune investigation PRIOR to Pearl Harbor? Even the Hilo Tribune Herald report just a week prior to Pear Harbor, stating that "JAPAN MAY STRIKE OVER WEEKEND", which is even INCLUDED AS AN IMAGE FOR THE ARTICLE, is not discussed. Any reason for this?
I suppose it is just a coincidence that all of these omissions and obscurations align in a way to uphold the orthodox view - the view that, somehow, when a submarine attacks a neutral country near a harbor where a fleet is stationed, it is perfectly normal and standard procedure for nobody to be put on notice, or be alerted, and no funny business is going on at all. Who writes these articles, and why are you misleading the people? KYSluegenpresse ( talk) 21:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
How bizarre is it that the Wiki article here states Prior Knowledge and in fact Prococations to cause the attack on US forces by the Japanese is called a "fringe theory?" The belief that FDR and Co. orchestrated (caused) a Japanese attack to allow the US to enter a politically unpopular War (WWII) not only is not "fringe" it is generally accepted at true by most any legitimate Historian still alive. Don't bother trying to improve this article by adding a section or anything else, because the powers that be at Wiki have this article just exactly how they want it. The main vandal to this article is Binksternet. This article is the definition of HOGWASH. Bugatti35racer ( talk) 05:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I think myself and a few others started the framework for the wiki, and I'm happy its still here. Maybe when I get some time, I'd like to update it and add some missing information as some parts are kind of incomplete. After we debated Stinnett, Villa, Wilford etc. we wanted to get some of this information out there. Best... (Scottsle) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:4203:590:2D91:5B07:E6A5:1BBA ( talk) 05:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Suggest that Trekphiler spend a little time reading WIkipedia policy on the subjects involved before he talks foolishly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Quoting:
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. Montestruc ( talk) 02:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense, your statement about being neutral is absolute complete and total nonsense.
It is simple historical fact, very well documented that Admiral J. O. Richardson in command of the US Fleet in the Pacific explicitly warned FDR that the most probable first move of the Japanese was an attack on Pearl Harbor. That was in early 1941, FDR sacked him over it.
Being an FDR sycophant and excuse maker is the epitome of not being neutral. Deliberate political supression of legitimate criticism of US politicians is totally against Wikipedia neutrality policy. Montestruc ( talk) 16:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Your editing of the page is not even slightly neutral. You act as if a progressive new deal democrat point of view is “neutral” which is ridiculous.
Richardson’s criticism and complaining that FDR’s policies were stupid was what got him fired.
Objectivly Richardson was right and FDR wrong, while you keep trying to supress facts that make FDR look like the fool, jackass, and charlatan he actually was.
It is a very well documented fact that FDR was warned by a professional naval officer that the Pearl Harbor raid was likely some 10 months in advance, yet you work to suppress any honest discussion that does not whitewash FDR.
You have no business editing wikipedia, you are just too biased.
I would be unsurprised if you draw a salary as an academic historian and do this on the side to suppress information that conflicts with your mealticket. I bet that is why you and your ilk refuse to use your own name and stand behind what you say.
Montestruc ( talk) 12:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No I WILL NOT move this to another page. You being called out for your unprofessional bias and politically motivated vandalism ON THIS ARTICLE belongs ON THIS PAGE, where people who read this page can see it.
That is so damn typical of a progressive. Whitewash, obfuscate, lie like a rug on the floor. Dodge criticism, evade truth.
This discussion stays here. Montestruc ( talk) 13:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I suggest amending the page to make clear that, even if the Pearl Harbor attack had not occurred, the attack on the Philippine Islands (a few hours after Pearl Harbor) would still have occurred, and that would have ensured war with the United States. The notion that thwarting the attack on Pearl Harbor (even if possible) would have prevented war with Japan, or made war less likely, is quite preposterous. The Japanese strategic plan required occupying the Dutch East Indies, for its oil, rubber, minerals, and foodstuffs. For access to the Dutch East Indies, securing the Philippine Islands was deemed essential. Pearl Harbor was a sideshow intended to hobble American response to this strategic plan, but was not an essential part of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoGunChuck ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I didn't miss the point at all. I was observing that there was no rational basis for FDR to do such a thing, since the Japanese strategic plan was fairly obvious, and would require an attack on the Philippines, which would ensure war with the U.S. anyway. Destruction of some antiquated battleships at Pearl Harbor achieved practically nothing, compared to the elimination of Allied air power in the Philippines, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies (achieved by the 2:1 superiority of Japan in air power). Pearl Harbor was certainly not essential to the Japanese strategic plan, and the Philippine attack was contemporaneous with what happened at Pearl Harbor. I'm just saying that these conspiracy nuts have tunnel vision if they think that absent Pearl Harbor, the U.S. would not have been at war on December 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoGunChuck ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Trekphiler’s notions of naval strategy are not really very sophisticated. Had Japan attacked south and utterly ignored Pearl Harbor and tried to lure the US Fleet into a fight in and arround the Philippines, the US Navy — had they been stupid enough to fall for it— would have lost far more ships and men in deeper waters where recovery was impossible. Japan by concentrating all her naval aircraft carriers (as was SOP for them) was vastly stronger than the 100/100/60 formula of the Washington treaty. Their fleet in the Pacific was far stronger than ours if concentrated as it was supposed to be, and used judiciously. Read Shattered Sword, read On the Tredmill to Pearl Harbor.
The Pearl Harbor attack almost did not happen, Yamamoto had to threaten to resign to get it approved.
Trekphiler you are really not very well educated on the subject. Montestruc ( talk) 18:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Trekphiler (why do all these supposedly supporters of “honest history” seem to need to use handles that have no relation to who they are?, while I and some others use our right name and stand behind what we say, , ?) wrote “hitting a fleet at anchor is a great deal easier than at sea, even if losses in deep water would be greater (a fact Nimitz & Rochefort both expressly acknowledged, tho the conspiracy nuts”
Going directly into pajoratives. So very classy, so very adult. The epitome of neutrality.
Yes indeed it is easier to “hit” a fleet trapped in a shallow harbor as pointed out by Admiral J. O. Richardson to president Roosevelt, where he clearly and explicitly explained to FDR in person at a meeting in the White House about 10 months before Pearl Harbor. FDR sacked Richardson for it.
I pointed out clearly that intervetion by the USN Pacific fleet in support of the Phillippines was unlikely, as it would have been stupid. The IJN would have most likely won such an engagement in late 1941 early 1942 had Pearl Harbor not happened. On the other hand, IJN would not be short on fuel, nor need to worry about that as they had fuel depos in Formosa, while on the Pearl Harbor raid some IJN units were at extreme range and short on fuel.
In any case, what is going on here are persons with progressive political inclinations blatently censoring anyone critical of their heros, especially pointing out serious lapses in judgement by FDR, that are well documented.
Basically Trekphiler is attacking any criticism of FDR as “crackpot” or whatever the pajorative of the day he wishes to use.
Trekphiler is explicitly getting very emotional in unreasoned defense of FDR from quite legitimate criticism.
Admiral Richardson explicitly warned FDR that his policy of moving the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor was dangerous personally in a White House meeting about 10 months before Pearl Harbor.
Read “On the Tredmill to Pearl Harbor” hell read the wikipedia bio of Admiral Richardson. Montestruc ( talk) 06:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
You actions as an editor MUST remain neutral and have a neutral voice. They arn’t that is abundantly clear. You treat new deal democratic progressive propaganda as if it were truth etched in stone by the hand of god.
You don’t have a Pacific fleet, you don’t have a proper instrument to project American political interests in the Pacific rim. FDR almost got our fleet wiped out by him moving the main base in easy reach of the IJN in late 1940. We were lucky the carriers were at sea.
Your “news” evades the issue. You hide your identity behind a false name. You do not stand behind what you do, no one can check to see what your personal or political or financial biases might be.
It is white washing, refusing to be honest. Montestruc ( talk) 13:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Binksternet
For this edit. I think this argument is self-consistent, and there are enough reliable sources at the footnote of referred webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellozeronet ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Taman Turbinton
Taman Turbinton is a student at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and is excavating this season at the site of Gezer. This is his second article with Discerning History.
http://discerninghistory.com/about/
Shows clearly that Mr Turbinton, the author of the article
Binksternet erased reference to, is not at all as Binksternet mendaciously claimed, “self-publishing”
The publishers of the website are Mr. Dan Horn, Mr. Joshua Horn, and Mr. Erik Woodard.
The religious affiliations of the author or publisher or editors of the site are utterly IRRELEVANT, and Binksternet referencing their religious affiliation only goes to show bigotry on the part of Binksternet.
The article Binksternet removed has 37 separate references articles. I have examined several of them all are real well-founded academic sources, all were on point in Terbinton’s work.
These include:
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300061833/secret-world-american-communism
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-lives-of-agnes-smedley-9780195141894?cc=us&lang=en&
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40402938?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.amazon.com/Venona-Secrets-Definitive-Espionage-Classics/dp/1621572951
It is becoming increasingly clear that Binksternet is a religious bigot, has nothing but disrespect for the Wikipedia organization and is in fact should be seen as a malicious politically motivated vandal.
Montestruc (
talk)
12:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Personal attacks? “Ad Hominem” OMG I demonstrate beyond any question whatever that Binksternet misrepresented facts (saying the referenced article was “self-published” when it obviously not as the site has numerous authors, the author of this article IS NOT the editor or publisher.
You lied. That is not “Ad Homiem” it is Binksternet engaging in politically motivated vandalism of wikipedia articles. It is Binksternet deliberatly and maliciously misrepresenting facts on a wikipedia article.
You should be banned.
Montestruc ( talk) 05:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Going back over some past comments, I came across a suggestion the debate should be framed by how & why it originated (a proposal IMO the page could really benefit from). It made me wonder: did this all start as an effort to undermine FDR's social agenda? By discrediting him, did opponents intend to discredit things like Social Security by extension? Is there any evidence either way? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
In it, the 252 group dealing with the Japanese situation in 1941 is open, save for the omission of Section 5, dealing with events from November 1941 through March 1942, and is marked with official finality as "closed for 75 years."[129]
- from the look of it, this comes from a 1981/1982 book which may explain the wording which seems to suggest me 75 years is still a long time away. Yet it's now 2019 and it's obviously been 75 years since 1942, so has section that was kept secret now been made public?
Nil Einne (
talk)
15:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I removed some (possibly) factual editorializing about Stinson's statement, to the effect of what Stinson didn't include in his statement—almost certainly not from the reference which documents the statement. Nearly miraculously, this was written about 8 years by a very recently banned sockpuppeteer. Tapered ( talk) 10:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Quite a few references refer to an author/book without giving the page number or section! See references: 8,9,10,12,14,18, 19,20,21,23,25,46,47,53,59,71,80,81,82,85,123,135. Several references do refer to a range of pages or a section, which I think is reasonable (eg Refs 115,120). Sometimes complicated by more than one edition of a book e.g. hardback and paperback, possibly with different page numbering. And I wonder which authors ("often" cited) cite "Roll T-175" at the National Archives (see Forgeries). Hugo999 ( talk) 01:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the following passage:
Sorge was a german-born Soviet spy who was executed in Japan. Before his execution in early 1942 Dr. Sorge made a complete word confession of his activities to his Japanese captors. The confession was forwarded to the Pentagon in Washington by General MacArthur. The following is a extract from Mr. O’Donnell’s article in the New York Daily News of May 7. 1951:
When the spy’s confession was sent here, somebody in the Pentagon deleted from the original the damning statement by Sorge that he had informed the Kremlin in October, 1941, that the Japs intended to attack Pearl Harbor within 60 days and that he had received thanks for his report and the notice that Washington – Roosevelt, Marshall, Adm. Stark, et al – had been advised of the Japanese intentions. There is no record that this information was acknowledged here. But the (Japanese) police documents make it clear that Stalin & Co. had this accurate information and passed it back to us in return for our information about the impending attack by Germany on Russia. [1] [2] [3]
References
Kent G. Budge initially removed this material with the explanation: "A speech in the Congressional Record from 1981 is neither a primary source, nor neutral, nor reliable." Bornetjbo restored it with the explanation: "if this page is about a conspiracy theory doesn't it look obvious the sources providing information about the conspiracy are going to be fringe ipso facto?". I have removed it again. Fringe theories can be mentioned to the extent they are discussed in reliable sources. Otherwise, there would be free reign to include every conspiracist blog with a pet theory and no way to make a determination which fringe theories are notable enough for inclusion. Are there reliable independent sources that discuss Theobald's views of Sorge or reliable independent sources that discuss the Mr. O’Donnell report? - Location ( talk) 17:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The following quote has been removed multiple times for many "different" reasons, looks like an attempt to shut it down. Read this especially page 53,54 and 55 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2383135?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents Bornetjbo ( talk) 08:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theorists believe Sorge who was a german-born Soviet spy was involved indirectly. He was executed in Japan. Before his execution in early 1942 Dr. Sorge made a complete word confession of his activities to his Japanese captors. [1]The confession was forwarded to the Pentagon in Washington by General MacArthur. The following is a extract from Mr. O’Donnell’s article in the New York Daily News of May 7. 1951:
When the spy’s confession was sent here, somebody in the Pentagon deleted from the original the damning statement by Sorge that he had informed the Kremlin in October, 1941, that the Japs intended to attack Pearl Harbor within 60 days and that he had received thanks for his report and the notice that Washington – Roosevelt, Marshall, Adm. Stark, et al – had been advised of the Japanese intentions. There is no record that this information was acknowledged here. But the (Japanese) police documents make it clear that Stalin & Co. had this accurate information and passed it back to us in return for our information about the impending attack by Germany on Russia. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
"
There are many other sources confirming Sorge warned USA or wanted to warn or knew about Japan plan 1) AN INSTANCE OF TREASON: Ozaki Hotsumi and the Sorge Spy Ring. By Chalmers Johnson. 278 pp. Stanford, California. 2) Shanghai Conspiracy: The Sorge Spy Ring. By Major GeneralCharles A. Willoughby. Preface by General of the Army Douglas MacArthur. New York: Dutton, 1952. 320. - Der Fall Sorge (The Sorge Case). By Hans-Otto Meissner. München: Wilhelm Andermann Verlag, 1955. 346. 3) Target Tokyo: The Story of the Sorge Spy Ring by Gordon W. Prange, Donald M. Goldstein, Katherine V. Dillon 4) Major Charles A. Willoughby asked if the russians did indeed know in advance of the proposed attack on Pearl Harbor, he testified in congress: "Yes, they did get the information." Source: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/congress/Vol35.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornetjbo ( talk • contribs) 08:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
is there any context for this? there is a reference to a "brainwave" without context:
In fact, when the final part of the "14-Part Message" (also called the "one o'clock message") crossed Kramer's desk, he cross-referenced the time (per usual practice, not the brainwave often portrayed) Nappy~enwiki ( talk) 20:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
why are those who advocate the advanced knowledge position reduced to "writers of history" in the lede, as opposed to historians, and why is that list in the lede shortened to individuals who the system would surely prefer you ignore in general (Barnes), rather than individuals who are even mentioned in the article itself, like Thomas Fleming?
Also, why does this article not include any mention of the Chicago Tribune investigation PRIOR to Pearl Harbor? Even the Hilo Tribune Herald report just a week prior to Pear Harbor, stating that "JAPAN MAY STRIKE OVER WEEKEND", which is even INCLUDED AS AN IMAGE FOR THE ARTICLE, is not discussed. Any reason for this?
I suppose it is just a coincidence that all of these omissions and obscurations align in a way to uphold the orthodox view - the view that, somehow, when a submarine attacks a neutral country near a harbor where a fleet is stationed, it is perfectly normal and standard procedure for nobody to be put on notice, or be alerted, and no funny business is going on at all. Who writes these articles, and why are you misleading the people? KYSluegenpresse ( talk) 21:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)