Were the Japanese baited into attacking Pearl Harbor...

Were the Japanese baited into attacking Pearl Harbor? How accepted is this conspiracy theory in modern historical teaching, and what do you think? I don't know much, just a pleb in search of wisdom.

>Were the Japanese baited into attacking Pearl Harbor
No.

>How accepted is this conspiracy theory in modern historical teaching
It's considered fringe tier conspiracy theory. The supposed "records" come from interviews about NARA records that do not nor have they ever existed.

>what do you think?
That when the Jap fleet went silent the US government knew that SOMETHING was going to be attacked but they didn't know where. They definitely didn't think it was going to be everything on the menu. This is pretty much the historical consensus at this point.

>Were the Japanese baited into attacking Pearl Harbor?
Nope. Japan was ruled by warhawks at the time. They already launched stupid wars that hyperstretched their forces.
>How accepted is this conspiracy theory in modern historical teaching,
The fact that you call it a conspiracy theory shows how much it is accepted.

I don't think it was "baited", so much as a foregone conclusion that FDR's various attempts at denying oil to Japan would inevitably result in war.

Also IIRC FDR did some really lawyeristic manipulation of the Neutrality Acts, where basically the US was allowed to trade with Britain and France (as they had superior merchant fleets to Germany), but Japan couldn't do the same (because the Japanese merchant fleet was superior to the practically nonexistent Chinese one)

well the ABCD quarantine made it vital to the japs that theyd get their hands on resources (Indochina, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippenes) to continue their war in China (which is why the ABCD sanction was invented in the first place).

Japan wanted a fast victory by trying to knock out American force projection early on, while the bulk of the Anglo-French forces were focussed on their respective motherlands.

A quick victory in the Pacific was vital, but the japs fucked up when the American fleet at PH remained mostly intact.

US goverment did want an excuse for war against Japan since starting one themselves would have been really unpopular among the masses. The oil embargo was meant to pretty much force Japans hand to do something. If they didnt do anything then their navy would have been crippled within a year and no attack would have been nececary anyway. What the US didnt expect was for Japan to start their attack so soon though.

The justifications I've heard for this are that
1 - The fleet was aging and expendable
2 - The fleet was positioned for an easy attack within the harbor
3 - Whoever commanded the fleet was instructed to position the fleet foolishly, then held responsible for the attack
Are these all fabrications, or wrong for another reason?

>where basically the US was allowed to trade with Britain and France (as they had superior merchant fleets to Germany), but Japan couldn't do the same (because the Japanese merchant fleet was superior to the practically nonexistent Chinese one)
That is not even close to why. The reasoning was that Japan and Germany were the aggressors and Britain and France were not. The Neutrality Act of 1939 simply stated that the U.S. would not trade with aggressive countries but belligerents were fine. The really retarded shit is that FDR never embargoed the USSR despite their invasion of the Baltics, Finland and Moldova (Bessarabia).

>The really retarded shit is that FDR never embargoed the USSR despite their invasion of the Baltics, Finland and Moldova (Bessarabia).

Geez, its almost as if FDR didn't care about the intent of the Acts

Oh and China got a free pass because neither Japan nor China actually declared war on each other which meant FDR could do whatever the fuck he wanted in that situation.

He did everything he could to undermine them as early as 1935. They really got his goat.

>He did everything he could to undermine them as early as 1935

The USSR or Imperial Japan?

The acts I meant. He wanted to pick and choose which countries would get embargoed but Congress told him to go fuck himself and that every country involved in a war was going to get embargoed. Japan as well though. Japan as well though. FDR had a real hard-on for China because a lot of his families money was made there prior to and especially after the Boxer Rebellion. If FDR had survived to see the end of the war, you can bet your tits he'd get the U.S. more deeply involved in the Civil War if he could.

Fair enough. Re: Stalin I think the general consensus is that FDR was naive and in denial that his grand "Popular Front" against fascism was pretty much just in his head (inb4 "He was a Jewish agent" etc etc)

>FDR had a real hard-on for China because a lot of his families money was made there prior to and especially after the Boxer Rebellion

In the opium trade like most wealthy New England WASPs?

I read that we had cracked the Jap codes and were fully apprised of when and where the attack would occur. Also that this is now public information, like the fact that no N. Vietnamese vessels were even present in the Gulf of Tonkin when the incident that got the US involved was alleged to occur.

Personally, I don't think he was naive. Looking at what actually happened you can tell he had ulterior motives which is why he would deal out things at conferences and tell the American people something different. Supposedly this is what led Truman into the conflict with Stalin. The sheer fact that he had been told one thing by FDR for his tenure as VP only to find out that none of it was really true pissed him off to no end. You can see the shift in Truman's attitude in writing before and after Potsdam.

I don't recall the specifics. It seems likely but honestly it was probably more to do with the industrialization of the legation cities. Many Americans had their hand in that in the lead up to the Boxer War which caused the Open Door Policy to be a thing. Americans were afraid that their hard work was about to be turned over to some scummy European imperialists, nevermind that they were proud imperialists themselves.

>I read that we had cracked the Jap codes and were fully apprised of when and where the attack would occur
This is half true. We were working on decoding the exact location of the attack but it wasn't decoded in time. We had knowledge that an attack was going to happen. We had no idea who was going to be attacked, when it would take place, or where. There's a huge leap in a priori knowledge between the two.
>like the fact that no N. Vietnamese vessels were even present in the Gulf of Tonkin when the incident that got the US involved was alleged to occur.
This isn't true at all. The First Gulf of Tonkin incident has been continually proved to have happened. Vietnamese PT boats attacked the USS Maddox on August 2nd, 1965. Even Giap admitted it. The Second Gulf of Tonkin Incident on Aug. 4 is sketchy and has been denied by the Vietnamese government. It hasn't been proven to not have happened though sources are increasingly leading in that direction.

you can apply this tinfoil hat mentality to major event of the war

>were stalin just luring ze germans into the stalingrad pocket
>was kursk just a bait
>bastogne was a bait too

and so on
its journalism
not history

>1965
1964. Fat fingered it.

what the fuck i love women now?

>Looking at what actually happened you can tell he had ulterior motives which is why he would deal out things at conferences and tell the American people something different. Supposedly this is what led Truman into the conflict with Stalin. The sheer fact that he had been told one thing by FDR for his tenure as VP only to find out that none of it was really true pissed him off to no end. You can see the shift in Truman's attitude in writing before and after Potsdam.

Do you have any books that go into more detail about this? I know about his shenanigans in trying to speed up intervention in Europe (i.e. letting British intelligence agents run riot in D.C. undermining the America First movement and pro-isolationists), but not much about the Soviet side outside the usual "FDR was an agent of the Judeo-Masonic-Satanic NWO" stuff

Off the top of my head, I do not. I just recall reading a book that went into some detail about this for a book review for uni. Let me dig around and see if I still have said book review to find out the title.

Ah here we go. It's actually two books with differing opinions on Yalta. Yalta: The Price of Peace by S.M. Plohky and Yalta 1945: Europe at a Crossroads by Fraser J. Harbutt. Both go into detail about FDRs dealings with Stalin in reference to the Yalta agreements but they come up with different views on how it affected the peace (Thanks Post Modernism!).