How accurate is the 'Tora,Tora,Tora' film?

[notawoowoo]

I confess all I know about the pearl harbor attack is from watching this excellent (IMHO) drama several times over the years on tv, and from following
some of the threads here about the attack...

Hence I wonder what the general opinion of Tora Tora Tora is here?

IMHO that film has got it essentialy right..especially the scene just before the attack where that last message to pearl from washington did not make it in time, due to bad short wave Navy radio conditions and the bureocrat idiot having it sent as a non emergency commercial telegram, ect..

From reading in the CT debate here I have noticed that HB's on this topic whilst unanimously crying that President FDR needed and wanted Japan to attack us and treasonusly sacrificied the thousands of Navy sailors for his goal of entering WW2 they allways miss these points.

1. FDR had been a Secretary of the Navy himself and was understandably quite fond of the Navy.
2. Given that the HB's are correct, that is that FDR conspired to goad and allow the Japanese Navy to attack Pearl,
IT CLEARLY WAS NOT NECCESSARY TO ALLOW THE JAPANESE NAVY TO SUCCEED!! Think about it..having Pearl adequately timely warned, with its fleet rushing out of harbor in time to intercept the incoming attack and destroy it in self defense would have certainly
roused the vast majority of Americans and Congress to without question enact the desired decleration of war...



So how strange is that, that one of the most honored and progressive US Presidents, whose masterfull leadership in large part saved the country from the depression through visionary progressive programs which saved millions of Americans from starvation ect..could also be as cunningly evil as Hitler and Stalin!!!???

Give me a break!!

thanks for letting me enter my neophyte 2 cents.

[Obviousman]

I don't know enough to answer most of your questions right now, but you have hit upon a number of interesting discussion points:

1. Most people would agree (IMO) that FDR wanted the US to support the British, if not actually enter the war on their side. I would go so far he was waiting for the right political climate to enter the war on the British side.

2. As you have said, it was not necessary to have a successful Japanese attack in order to justify either overt support or a declaration of war on the Japanese. A clear demonstration of Japanese intention would be sufficient to achieve (IMO) FDR's goals. This could be achieved by the repelling of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Increased vigilence in the form of exercises could have been organised during which (if the attack had been known) the "surprise" attack would be severely blunted, if not actually negated. This would have shown Japanese intent without loss of operational capability.

3. Allowing a Japanese attack would have been a terrible mistake in strategic thinking. That attack severely compromised the ability of US forces in the Pacific region to respond to Japanese military advances. It took years of the US industrial base working full-time, over-stretching of the Japanese logistic capability, and a couple of lucky tactical victories, in order for the US to overcome the disadvantage. Once again, it would have been better (if the attack plans had been known) to repel that attack, preserving US assets in the Pacific.

[captain swoop]

Also it relies on Hindsight to know that the Carriers were going to be the most important part of the fleet at a time when the Battleship was considered to be the most important.

[Obviousman]

Also it relies on Hindsight to know that the Carriers were going to be the most important part of the fleet at a time when the Battleship was considered to be the most important.

That's another interesting point; there was great debate about the importance of the carrier versus the battleship in that era. Battles such as Taranto and Coral Sea elevated the value of the carrier in strategic thinking, but that was still in the future (okay, Taranto was in 1940). Loss of the battleships at Pearl Harbour, in the minds of the predominently convential thinking US Naval chiefs, would have been a far greater blow than loss of carriers.

[Sam5]

IT CLEARLY WAS NOT NECCESSARY TO ALLOW THE JAPANESE NAVY TO SUCCEED!!

Of course.

[SpitfireIX]

Moderators--

Could you please merge this into the long Pearl Harbor thread?

[SpitfireIX]

FDR wanted the US to support the British, if not actually enter the war on their side. I would go so far he was waiting for the right political climate to enter the war on the British side.

I've read that Roosevelt's advisors had told him in September of 1941 that he had the votes in Congress for a declaration of war against Germany. He may have been waiting for a more favorable political climate in order to have a greater mandate to conduct the war as he saw fit; however, the main reason FDR did not ask for a declaration of war sooner was that his military advisors were begging him to delay entering the war as long as possible, in order to give them more time to prepare.

Increased vigilence in the form of exercises could have been organised during which (if the attack had been known) the "surprise" attack would be severely blunted, if not actually negated. This would have shown Japanese intent without loss of operational capability.

In June, 1940, after Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, the War Department sent an order to the commander in Hawaii that read as follows:

George C. Marshall
Immediately alert complete defensive organization to deal with possible trans-Pacific raid, to the greatest extent possible without creating public hysteria or provoking undue curiosity of newspapers or alien agents. Suggest maneuver basis. Maintain alert until further orders. Instructions for secret communications direct with Chief of Staff will be furnished you shortly. Acknowledge. [emphasis added]

Unfortunately for the US, Marshall was out of Washington observing important maneuvers when the final round of warnings was sent to Pearl Harbor, and the orders sent were less explicit and less urgent.

Allowing a Japanese attack would have been a terrible mistake in strategic thinking. That attack severely compromised the ability of US forces in the Pacific region to respond to Japanese military advances.

How much help the battleships would have been in slowing the Japanese is debatable; however, the attack unquestionably created some major problems for the US in the Pacific.

[jrkeller]

Here are the goofs in the movie. As you can see they are minor.

[Larry Jacks]

I first heard of the "Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory" from one one my high school teachers, a retired Air Force Colonel, over 30 years ago. He didn't say that he believed the conspiracy theory was true, meerly that it existed. On the face of it, if there were any substantive evidence of FDR letting the attack take place, it probably would've been destroyed decades ago. Personally, I don't believe it.

FDR knew that the Japanese were a problem but that Hitler was the real threat. How would letting the Japanese attack the US fleet at Pearl Harbor strengthen the case for going to war against Germany? Had Hitler not made the monumental blunder (one of many) of declaring war on the US, it might've been a hard sell for the US to declare war on Germany.

When Hitler declared on the US, he provided a long list of greviences. One of them was related to FDR ordering US Navy ships to escort British convoys long before Pearl Harbor. At least one of those ships, the USS Reuben James, was sank by a German U-Boat over a month before Pearl Harbor. Technically, those US escorts were an act of war against Germany.

[Astronot]

I remember reading a similar account of the message transmission years ago in a The Puzzle Palace. It is sometimes the case that the course of important events are shaped by mundane actions even if the CT don't want to believe it.

[MG1962A]

Here are the goofs in the movie. As you can see they are minor.

Ohh Ohh - they missed one. Prior to the attack there are a couple of close up character shots with the harbour in the background. Most of the naval vessels in those shots are the Australian Navy.

The producers of the film waited for a combined naval exercise to finish so the port would look fuller of warships than normal

[JonClarke]

Most of the naval vessels in those shots are the Australian Navy.

I don't think we had that big a navy, even in 1970

[Obviousman]

I don't think we had that big a navy, even in 1970

We were probably doing a RIMPAC; they have been going for quite some time.

[Neverfly]

this is (normal for me ) but a bit off
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group
The Importance of the carrier was soon learned and now employes the Carrier Battle Group. its strategically interesting...
My Grandmother firmly Believed that Roosevelt knew in advance but allowed it to happen to Boost economy and Galvanize the American public into War.
The basic question in my mind is.. Why would any Leader ALLOW an attack that will Compromise the FLEET!? thats like taunting a guy into shooting you- so that you can fight him.
The basic Question of evidence comes down to interviewing Folks who are probably dead by now- or digging in Roosevelts oval office trash can- which im sure has been emptied by now...
the Question of Speculation comes down to - like the question i raised- and also Key power.
Did he have the Authority and respect of the nation to Declare war without instigation from outside Sources?
as i recall Roosevelt was Much respected and served FOUR terms in office...

[Neverfly]

OOPS- i meant this post to go into the Prediction of pearl Harbor thread. oh Well..

[Occam]

I don't want to open up a can of worms here but...
It would be a huge mistake to believe that a government, especially a wartime one, would not allow massive property destruction and the death of many civilians, including its own, if a political or strategic advantage was the perceived end result.

Consider what Churchill allowed at Coventry. Consider the almost total annihilation of the population of Dresden, not in any way a military target. Both cases were no more than the systematic mass murder of civilians, children and refugees etc. as pawns in a psychological game.

It is neither inconceivable, nor impossible that Pearl Harbour was allowed to happen, even engineered. Neither should 911 conspiracy theories be dismissed out of hand. Both events may well be exactly what the official story portrays - but any discrepencies in those stories should be rigorously examined, as should any conflicting material evidence. To do any less would be a disgrace.

History is written by the victors and political and social success is not a sure fire sign of a noble man. Smiling Joe Stalin was revered and idolised by the same people he murdered by the millions, as was Chairman Mao. To fool yourself that "it couldn't happen here" seems somewhat blinkered.

[Neverfly]

<chuckle- you just made the same mistake i did i think... i was reading both this thread and another Called Predictions of Pearl harbor- and i meant to post my reply there but i put it here instead- intentional or not - both our replies belong on that other thread. THIS one is about a Film of the events...
You make Good points- But Especially after Decades- the burden of proof can become EXCEEDNGLY difficult..exponentially i should say, as time passes...
Sometimes you can Only Accept what you cannot prove... and its hard.
But History is FULL of atrocities- the best we can do is maintain healthy skepticism inside even when we show complacency on the outside.
Results? the higher we demand security-the more freedoms we can lose...
To accuse a leader of "allowing" something to happen is like saying Why did God "allow" this to happen. You can almost always find a motive for the allowance and make the claim... You can loan a friend your car- and if someone rear ends him you can claim he ALLOWED it to happen- for whatever reason, but that doesnt really Mean A Whole lot...Our Presidents have a limit on time they can serve also too because an Inhumane presdient can be replaced by a Humane one that couldnt hold himself responsible for the deaths if he allowed it to occur.
Vote Wisely and gamble your luck...
We COULD gather evidence of a conspiracy- we COULD gather evidence of a plan.. But to gather evidence of whether he knew and allowed it would prove VERY difficult and we are only left with speculation. Of course an inquiry should be done if within reason- remember too the Fundamental of Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

[SpitfireIX]

Consider what Churchill allowed at Coventry.

This is a myth. From an article on the Churchill Centre's web site:

Peter J. McIver
All concerned with the information gleaned from the intercepted German signals were conscious that German suspicions must not be aroused for the sake of ephemeral advantages. In the case of the Coventry raid no dilemma arose, for until the German directional beam was turned on the doomed city nobody knew where the great raid would be. Certainly the Prime Minister did not. The German signals referred to a major operation with the code name "Moonlight Sonata. . . ." during the afternoon before the raid I wrote in my diary (kept under lock and key at 10 Downing Street), "It is obviously some major air operation, but its exact destination the Air Ministry find it difficult to determine. . . ."

There is not even the thinnest shred of truth in Group Captain Winterbotham's story of Coventry. It is to be hoped that neither this incident nor a score of others with which Mr. Stevenson's book about "Intrepid" is gaudily bedizened are ever used for the purpose of historical reference.

Consider the almost total annihilation of the population of Dresden, not in any way a military target.

Dresden most certainly was a military target. From a US Naval War College paper entitled "Are We Beasts?": Churchill and the Moral Question of World War II "Area Bombing":

Christopher C. Harmon
There were other and more conventional military reasons for destroying the city. Dresden had become the center of German rail and road communications behind the southern half of the Eastern Front. Such logistical nodes had long been sought out by Allied bombers, and post-war examination . . . would find attacks on land transport targets to be among the most effective of the war. Then there was the most immediate reason . . . support for the Soviet armies. . . . Lastly, there was a related tactical purpose, one John Colville calls a principal factor in the decision: an (erroneous) intelligence report from the Soviets that one or possibly two German armored divisions had arrived at Dresden . . . [citations omitted]

Both cases were no more than the systematic mass murder of civilians, children and refugees etc. as pawns in a psychological game.

No. Although there is considerable evidence that Hitler's obsession with bombing enemy cities may have been fueled by his sadomasochistic personality, and both sides initially hoped that the bombing of civilian targets might break the enemy's will to continue fighting, such bombing also indirectly aided military operations, by occupying air-defense assets and civilian manpower that might have been employed elsewhere.

It is neither inconceivable, nor impossible that Pearl Harbour was allowed to happen, even engineered.

No, but it is completely illogical. Practically everything that conspiracists claim FDR gained by the attack on Pearl Harbor could have been gained by an unsuccessful attack, and destroying or crippling the Japanese strike force would have considerably aided the Allied war effort in both the Pacific and Europe (by allowing the US and Royal Navies to keep more ships and aircraft in the Atlantic).

Neither should 911 conspiracy theories be dismissed out of hand. Both events may well be exactly what the official story portrays - but any discrepencies in those stories should be rigorously examined, as should any conflicting material evidence. To do any less would be a disgrace.

Conspiracists are almost universally unqualified to conduct such examinations, and freqently refuse to accept the opinions of those who are so qualified.

History is written by the victors

Hogwash. The most popular history of the American Civil War was written by a southerner named Shelby Foote. This is simply a platitude spouted by revisionists in order to explain away the fact that their theories are rejected by the great majority of historians.

To fool yourself that "it couldn't happen here" seems somewhat blinkered.

Conspiracists frequently accuse debunkers of being "in denial." What we deny is that there is any significant, credible evidence for any popular conspiracy theory we've ever seen. We most certainly do not believe that "it couldn't happen here." Further, as you may have noticed, a significant number of the participants in this forum are not Americans. So they can hardly be accused of such denial.

[Larry Jacks]

Consider what Churchill allowed at Coventry.

This is a myth. From an article on the Churchill Centre's web site:

Thanks, Spitfire IX ( BTW: considered the best version of the plane by several top British fighter pilots).

I was about to respond to the Coventry claim but you beat me to it. Winterbottom was perhaps the first to say that Churchill allowed the bombing of Coventry in his book, "The Ultra Secret." However, later books such as "Most Secret War" by Dr. R. V. Jones disputed the claim pretty credibly, IMO. Jones mentioned that at that point in the war, only a small percentage of Ultra intercepts were broken in time to act upon. He specifically mentioned the problems with determining German air raid targets at the time. The British had to have specially equipped planes flying around to detect the presence of the German navigation beams in order to work out the target. It didn't always happen.

I've read several books about and by Dr. R. V. Jones and highly recommend them. He was truly a remarkable man and is the "Father of Electronic Countermeasures." He played a significant role in winning WWII.

[Occam]

That's a nice knee-jerk reaction there, Spitfire and I don't hope to change your mind in the slightest - but if you only read documentation that supports what you believe you'll never learn anything either. You nicely dismiss "conspiracists" as if they were a single unit of fruitcakes, instead of individuals from all walks of life, some of whom would believe anything and others who are uniquely qualified to question and challenge such discrepencies. It must be nice and comforting for you to be able to disregard all suggestions of conspiracy as fantasy. Nixon would have been gratified. But before you launch into another retort, you may wish to acknowledge that I was most certainly not accusing anyone here of being in denial, nor advocating any particular conspiracy theory. I suggested that discrepencies in official stories should be investigated rigorously. Personally, I would prefer that any investigation of anything be done by those most qualified, not the least.

As for Dresden,well, lightly mentioning "an (erroneous) intelligence report from the Soviets that one or possibly two German armored divisions had arrived..." neatly whitewashes the fact that Dresden was a hospital city for wounded soldiers. Not one military unit, not one anti-aircraft battery was deployed in the city. Together with the 600,000 refugees from Breslau who were fleeing from the Russians (whose policies regarding civilians are well documented), Dresden was filled with nearly 1.2 million people. Churchill was well aware of the reliability of such Russian intelligence and wasn't interested in targeting know military installations 60 miles outside of Dresden, because he had a bigger point to make. More than 700,000 phosphorus bombs were dropped on 1.2 million people - one bomb for every 2 people. The temperature in the centre of the city reached 1600 degrees centigrade. More than 260,000 bodies and residues of bodies were counted but those who perished in the centre of the city obviously couldn't be traced. Approximately 500,000 children, women, the elderly and wounded soldiers were massacred in one attack.

No, but it is completely illogical. Practically everything that conspiracists claim FDR gained by the attack on Pearl Harbor could have been gained by an unsuccessful attack, and destroying or crippling the Japanese strike force would have considerably aided the Allied war effort in both the Pacific and Europe (by allowing the US and Royal Navies to keep more ships and aircraft in the Atlantic)

Sure - and practically everything gained by the dropping of two nuclear bombs on Japan could have been achieved in other ways, too. By all accounts, Japan was ready to surrender anyway and the list of American military experts who were against its use is very long - but it was the perfect opportunity to use the bomb and establish the US as the dominant world power.

As for history not being written by the victors, mentioning "popular" history hardly serves your point. In the "popular" history of the American civil war, how much attention is given to the concentration camps of Andersonville and Elmira, for example? Let's forget history and look at current news. How many Americans, for example, STILL think that Iraq was behind the attacks on September 11th, 2001? In Bush's "War on terror", where in Iraq are the terrorists? What justifies dropping hundreds of tons of depleted uranium onto the Middle East, poisoning it FOREVER? Oh right, you never see it on the news do you? - and CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox are well known for their impartial and unbiased reporting.

Spitfire, I am not qualified to speak for others as you seem to believe you are, nor am I a "conspiracist" or an idiot. There are conspiracy "theories" that boggle the mind with their jaw-dropping stupidity and which are clearly and demonstrably nonsense. That said, the blanket dismissal of every suggestion that challenges the comfortable official view of your world is not a healthy thing either. The crazed proponents of intelligent design use such tactics and it is essential that rational thinkers behave differently. Acceptance is not proof.

I apologise for inadvertently hijacking this thread. Tora Tora Tora? Great movie.

[Swift]

Occam,
Just a friendly piece of advice. You may wish to be careful with analogies to current events and the current administration in the US, it gets close to the prohibition on politics in this forum.

[Occam]

I stand corrected. I thought that a forum called "Conspiracy Theories" would be just the place for politics but, having just read the rules for posting, I see that it isn't unless it impacts upon astronomy and science. Mea Culpa

[Neverfly]

I stand corrected. I thought that a forum called "Conspiracy Theories" would be just the place for politics but, having just read the rules for posting, I see that it isn't unless it impacts upon astronomy and science. Mea Culpa

Occam yeah politics is Dirty:P
the forum grouping is Conspiracy theories but this thread is about The Film...
the OTHER thread i mentioned might have been a better place for these posts...
The SITE is about Astronomy
the Venture into Ground based conspiracie theories is "tolerated?" simply to allow the chance to refute them... but these folks still want to stay BASICALLY on track.

Hey can i confess?
I havent SEEN Tora Tora Tora.. i wandered in curious about what it was.. <chuckle> think i need to watch it before i can post SQUAT in this thread:P

[Swift]

I stand corrected. I thought that a forum called "Conspiracy Theories" would be just the place for politics but, having just read the rules for posting, I see that it isn't unless it impacts upon astronomy and science. Mea Culpa

It is a narrow line and the 9/11 stuff always runs close to the edge.
By the way, From where I Stand is a good forum which is open to civil discussions on politics, religion, and adult stuff. A lot of BAUTers, including myself, hang out there too.

[Occam]

No worries. I like this place just fine. It's like a shelter from madness

[Neverfly]

No worries. I like this place just fine. It's like a shelter from madness :grin:

it IS refreshing to find a forum based on rational thinking and explanations isnt it? GRIN

[novaderrik]

i think that "Pearl Harbor" film from a few years ago was a remake of that film. i know it was a remake of one of those cool old WW2 films, anyways, and Afflec singlehandedly managed to make it unwatchable..

[MG1962A]

Originally Posted by MG1962A
Most of the naval vessels in those shots are the Australian Navy.

I don't think we had that big a navy, even in 1970

Well it wasn't THAT big, just happened that the assigned achorage was in the scene. This may have been influenced by still having the Vendetta and Vampire Large destroyers in service. Unlike their counterparts these were still all gun vessels - and looked nice and bristtley for the shot.

But at the time we still had two Aircraft carriers and attendent support vessels in service

[Obviousman]

But at the time we still had two Aircraft carriers and attendent support vessels in service

Well, an aircraft carrier (MELBOURNE) and a 'fast troop transport' (SYDNEY).

*sigh*
Those were the days....

[Conrad]

"As for Dresden,well, lightly mentioning "an (erroneous) intelligence report from the Soviets that one or possibly two German armored divisions had arrived..." neatly whitewashes the fact that Dresden was a hospital city for wounded soldiers. Not one military unit, not one anti-aircraft battery was deployed in the city. Together with the 600,000 refugees from Breslau who were fleeing from the Russians (whose policies regarding civilians are well documented), Dresden was filled with nearly 1.2 million people. Churchill was well aware of the reliability of such Russian intelligence and wasn't interested in targeting know military installations 60 miles outside of Dresden, because he had a bigger point to make. More than 700,000 phosphorus bombs were dropped on 1.2 million people - one bomb for every 2 people. The temperature in the centre of the city reached 1600 degrees centigrade. More than 260,000 bodies and residues of bodies were counted but those who perished in the centre of the city obviously couldn't be traced. Approximately 500,000 children, women, the elderly and wounded soldiers were massacred in one attack."


Where on earth do you get this rubbish from! Ernst Zundel? David Irving? The IHR Big Book of Allied War Crimes?

The true number of dead at Dresden, as determined by the Germans themselves AT THE TIME, is @25,000. WTF is a "hospital city"? - a term I have never read until today. Dresden was a target by virtue of being a major road and rail hub, and having several military industries within it's boundaries. It hadn't been attacked previously because of it's distance and the lack of an escort fighter able to travel that far.

Also, you can't have it both ways. A city of 1.2 million people without ANY military presence? Do you honestly think the 3rd Reich left people to their own devices on a city-wide scale? Do you think the records of the wounded soldiers sent to Dresden from all over the Eastern Front were also kept in Dresden and destroyed there? Why have we never seen German historians bewailing those 250,000 missing German soldiers? Why - oh I give up.

oh - "Tora Tora Tora" - if you compare it to "Pearl Harbour" (Br. Spelling) then - why! - it's a documentary!