Professor for life—perry

Conspiracy theories have surrounded almost every major, worldwide event, from the Holocaust to the 9/11 attacks. To say that one believes in a historical conspiracy as massive as 9/11 is to have complete distrust in our government. A believer would have to conclude that our government, whose primary job is to protect us, purposely killed thousands of people to simply start a foreign war for oil. The insanity and audacity present in a claim like that is almost unimaginable. However, when faced with conflicting evidence, it is difficult not to question the possibility of foul play. Similarly, another theory accuses the government of having advanced knowledge of the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor in hopes of securing the American public’s support of US World War 2 entry. Whether or not these conspiracy theories are true, the effects have forever changed not only our country, but also our entire world.

Many conservative Americans may argue that it is unconscionable for a United States president to allow an attack on his own military, let alone to provoke one. While difficult to accept, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s obvious push for war cannot be overlooked. “Prior to December 7, it was evident to me…we were pushing Japan into a corner. I believe that it was the desire of President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill…that we get into the war,” said vice Admiral Frank Beatty, aide to Secretary of the Navy and close friend to FDR. Roosevelt clearly wanted the US to enter war against Germany, Japan, Italy, and the rest of the Axis powers, but needed the public’s support. Many Americans felt the need to “mind their own business” and to let Europe handle its own problems. Roosevelt, however, would not give up and worked tirelessly alongside high-ranking military officials to ensure the American public would soon be in full support of US WW2 entry.

December 4, 1941; a day that will forever “ live in infamy.” Without warning and with no official declaration of war, Japanese fighter planes, bombers, and aircraft carriers navigated toward the Pearl Harbor military base, located in Hawaii. Their mission was to destroy as much of the naval base as possible. The surprise attack, known as a huge Japanese success, damaged every Navy battleship and killed over 2,400 American soldiers, playing into Roosevelt’s hands. Almost immediately, the attack prompted the United States to enter war with Japan, Germany, and Italy, officially declaring war on December 7, 1941. The blatant attack helped secure the United States’ alliance with the Allied powers, while also prompting the American public to rally behind Roosevelt, the troops, and the Allied cause of World War 2. As previously agreed upon by Roosevelt and Churchill, the alliance against the Axis powers was solidified and the US entry proved to be beneficial as it to lead to eventual Allied power victory.

Many Americans, when faced with a disaster so horrible and incomprehensible, look for answers in conspiracy theories. These theories provide explanations to some of the worst events, which help believers avoid the fatality of an “everything happens for a reason” conclusion. Perhaps conspiracy theories are just a symptom of the overly paranoid of society. Without the presence of conspiracy beliefs, we would be forced to accept whatever information the government releases to the public. For some groups, it would be impossible to live with the extreme paranoia that could develop. Theories offer a type of secretive security blanket for believers to consider alternatives to a terrible (possible) truth.

In regards to Pearl Harbor, the people who do not believe FDR and his cabinet had advanced knowledge of the attack have never seen the evidence in favor of a known/provoked attack. In present time, it is impossible not to question the motives of governmental and military officials. Based on the overwhelming evidence in favor of popular conspiracies such as 9/11, all unanswered questions are filled in with assumed or theorized conclusions. For sometimes unknown reasons, the government withholds knowledge from the general public, who are then forced to draw their own conclusions. If society is prone to paranoia and skepticism, the logical reasoning is to accuse the government of foul play. Logically speaking, if the government is withholding information, it can be inferred that they are hiding details and reasoning from the public.

One year prior to the attack, in January 1941, Britain’s Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, and FDR were focused on winning the war–together. FDR promised Churchill of a secret alliance; a few short months after also deceivingly promising the American boys they will be kept out of foreign wars. FDR and his administration agreed that full disclosure regarding eminent war entry must be kept from the public until they had a reason to back the decision. Fundamentally, FDR was determined to give the public the reasoning they needed in order to fully support US entry. Before Pearl Harbor, the war was unfavored by almost 80% of Americans, but the government, led by FDR and Churchill’s secret promises, was set on becoming involved at any cost.

In preparation for the war, FDR and his administration agreed to move the Pacific Fleet’s permanent base to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii in 1940. Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote, “…the question was how we should maneuver the Japanese into the position of firing the first shot.” It is inferred that FDR was offering the destruction of his entire Pacific Fleet in hopes of securing his reasoning for entering the war. The fleet’s commander, J.O. Richardson, argued the immense vulnerability of its new location, primarily of its ability to be attacked from all sides and the inability to rig the area with torpedo-protective nets. In response to his concerns, Richardson was immediately relieved of his duties and replaced by Husband Kimmel.

As eminent entry drew closer, the United States began their breach of neutrality by sending aid to Britain and freezing German and Japanese assets in the United States in July of 1941.. Countless Japanese diplomatic codes were decrypted, and most pointed to an inevitable attack on the United States. It was determined that the attack would occur at the Hawaii base, in hopes of debilitating the US and allowing Japan to easily access Asia and the Philippines. The new Pearl Harbor commander, Husband Kimmel, was convinced FDR would alert him of any attack intelligence; a hopeless cause as he and his base were sealed off from receiving any knowledge. Perhaps the most damning evidence of government knowledge is found in the McCollum Memo. In this memo, FDR is given an eight-part action plan to ensure war with Japan. Written by Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, the president is given Japanese intelligence reports and is also urged to provoke Japan into attacking the US. Once the “overt act of war” is committed, the US can freely enter war against the Axis powers, backed by public support.

The effects of conspiracy theories can be everlasting. Government-based theories will result in a general dislike and distrust of authority. For the extreme believers, this can persuade them to reject any information the government releases; even if is true and believable, which can have detrimental effects. Specifically, the belief that FDR had advanced-knowledge of Pearl Harbor and did nothing to prevent it has lead to his tainted reputation. Believers may also determine that the government has involved themselves in every major disaster since. This highlights the selfish attitude of authority and denial of common good.

Politically, the primary result of the Pearl Harbor attack was the entrance of the US into World War 2. It is believed that Japan, without being provoked, would never have attacked the US until they knew that they could beat us in war. While it is unclear what would have happened without the Pearl Harbor attack, one can assume the US would never have been a WW2 player. If Japan was not given ultimatums and unnecessary restrictions, some believe they never would have attacked Pearl Harbor. As a result, FDR, determined to back the Allied powers, needed an attack to justify his selfish and secretive political desires. Without this provocation, the US may have never entered and led the Allied powers to victory. This certainly would change the entire world.

We may never know whether or not FDR and his administration had prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attacks. However, the simple existence of conspiracy theories will forever cause society to question government tactics. When we are not given adequate information, we are forced to fill in the gap, sometimes with unproven theories causing unjust conclusions. It is important to consider both the pros and cons of government-based conspiracy theories, and not to allow them to cause unnecessary paranoia.

This entry was posted in Professor for Life. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Professor for life—perry

  1. perry1comp's avatar perry1comp says:

    I added a lot more info-where do you think mentioning enigma would fit in best? Also, do you think I should tie in conspiracy theories proven to be true, or focus on expanding cause/effect analysis? Thank you SO much!

    Like

  2. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:

    Hey, Perry. I’m disappointed you weren’t able to take my Comp II course, but I’m happy to help you with yours.

    I have some family obligations this morning, but before I go, let me say a couple words about cause/effect.

    Since the success of your entire paper depends on the clarity of your claims, you’ll need to say things very carefully in your introduction.

    You make three Cause/Effect claims in your first paragraph, each of which creates confusion you can’t afford.

    1. A believer would have to conclude that our government, whose primary job is to protect us, purposely killed thousands of people to simply start a foreign war for oil.

    The confusion: Nobody accuses the government of training the pilots or helping them access the planes they commandeered as bombs, so you go too far when you say the government “killed thousands of people.”* Saying so raises the wrong kind of objection for a careful reader.

    2. Similarly, another theory accuses the government of having advanced knowledge of the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor in hopes of securing the American public’s support of US World War 2 entry.

    The confusion: You say the government “had knowledge” in order “to secure” the public’s support. But of course, their knowledge wouldn’t secure anything. The claim is that the government knew the Japanese would attack, may even have provoked them to attack, but it would be the attack, not the government’s knowledge, that secured the public’s support.

    3. Whether or not these conspiracy theories are true, the effects have forever changed not only our country, but also our entire world.

    The confusion: Surely the events of 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Holocaust have changed the world. But you say the conspiracy theories have changed it. Not only that, you claim that they’ve changed it whether they’re true or not. Is that the claim you want to base your entire paper on? That conspiracy theories have changed our world?

    Professors care about the introductions particularly, perry. If they are very clear about the paper’s intentions, the professor (and every reader) can relax a little bit and wait for the arguments to unfold. If they’re not clear, they set false expectations and the paper fails when it doesn’t fulfill them.

    Is that helpful? I’ll return to answer your specific questions when I can.

    *If I’m wrong about the 9/11 theories, it’s because I haven’t read the rest of your paper yet. So, if theorists actually accuse the government of plotting and carrying out the flights of planes into the twin towers, be sure you make that accusation explicitly clear in your introduction.

    Like

  3. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:

    Hello again, perry!
    Your specific comments:

    1) I added a lot more info
    —Yes, you did, and it serves you well for the most part. However, one place the argument breaks down is the “interim” paragraph that begins, “With regard to Pearl Harbor.” Here you seem to be using the “overwhelming evidence” of conspiracy on 9/11 to prove the Pearl Harbor conspiracy. BUT, the big problem with that strategy is you haven’t demonstrated anything about 9/11 yet, so you’re depending on a wild unproven allegation to prove a theory you’re doing a good job of documenting. In other words, prove PH first, then use the reasonableness of that theory to prove 9/11, not the other way around. (See more on this suggestion at the end of 3).

    2) where do you think mentioning enigma would fit in best?
    —Your “eminent entry” paragraph tells the story of breaking Japanese codes. It suggests that broken codes mean captured intelligence that would make it possible to predict a Japanese attack with accuracy. It strongly suggests that the US knew about and deliberately declined to prevent the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Enigma story should follow immediately after since its relevance is to exactly such stories.

    3) Also, do you think I should tie in conspiracy theories proven to be true, or focus on expanding cause/effect analysis?

    I believe I may have found the cause/effect claim you suggested in your introduction here, perry, in your “the effects of conspiracy theories” paragraph. It draws a single but substantial conclusion that conspiracy theories creates distrust of government. Apparently this is what you meant when you said ” Whether or not these conspiracy theories are true, the effects have forever changed not only our country, but also our entire world.” If I’m right, you’ll need to explicitly state that the “change” is the loss of trust in government that in turn makes it more difficult to effectively govern.

    Let’s look at this closely. Conspiracy theories arise when behavior is difficult to comprehend and are not convincingly explained. They are evidence of mistrust. They don’t cause mistrust. HOWEVER, if wild conspiracy theories turn out to be true or credible, they can hearten and embolden future theorists. The causal chain looks like this:

    1. Catastrophe occurs
    2. Reasonable explanations are not satisfying
    3. Authorities stonewall or offer contradictory evidence
    4. Unthinkable theories suggest devious motivations
    5. Theorists are dismissed as cranks.
    6. No long-term damage is done.
    BUT . . .
    7. Evidence supportive of the conspiracy emerges
    8. No refutations sufficiently disprove the new evidence
    9. Reasonable people accept the theory
    10. Credibility of the authorities is permanently damaged

    The next time an unfathomable catastrophe occurs, we can skip a few steps. There’s already distrust of the authorities, so the conspiracy theories seem sadly less outrageous.

    Does this seem reasonable? If so, then what you say is true about conspiracy theories. It doesn’t matter if they’re true; as long as they’re more reasonable than the official versions, more people will be inclined to believe them, which means lasting damage to the trust required to govern effectively.

    So . . . YES. It’s important to provide the evidence of theories that turned out to be true, since they taint the credibility of the official version.

    And . . . FINALLY. The time to discuss 9/11 is after all this has been said. Once we know earlier theories have made the public dubious, you can explain with confidence why the 9/11 conspiracy theories won’t go away.

    4) Thank you SO much!
    —Not at all. Thank you. It gratifies and heartens me that you still value my advice, perry.

    Like

  4. perry1comp's avatar perry1comp says:

    Thank you so much for all of your feedback. I really appreciate it and believe me, if you offered an 8 am class (as that is the only time I had available with my internship schedule) I would have 100% signed up for your COMP 2 section!

    Like

Leave a comment