Well, supposedly the US shot down what looked like 39 zeros/betty bombers. But the 'evidence' you give doesn't disprove mine, it really confirms it. The British wanted Japan to declare war, but the British knew that despite thsize of the Japanese navy they wouldn't actually be able to manage the attack. So, in return for a ecleration of war on the US, Britian 'retreated' from its colonies in the pacific, and said 'here you go.' Look at the massive intelligence capabilities of the British at the time. They pretty much knew when the Germans or Japanese sneezed.

I'm not saying FDR didn't have a hand in it. He probably did. As someone asked, why was our Navy ported so far from home then? Duh, because it would be hard to explain any british corpses found along the pacific coast. So, FDR, Winston, and Tojo planned together the entry of America in the war against Germany, but FDR wanted to be a super hero, so he kept the war with Japan going, using the British attack on Pearl Harbor as a pretext.

You do know that there was a conference between Winston an Tojo, prior to the war do you not? WHat were they doing? Drinking Tea? Obviously not, they were plotting the war. But Tojo didn't know that the US could handle two wars, and neither did Winston, so FDR played a one up on both of them. FDR will eventually beome the most defamed president because of all the variables that prove he knew, and probably helped plan, the attack on pearl harbor.

Another consipiracy you need to be on the look out for is the one about the Titanic...did you know that Metal is STRONGER than Ice so an Iceberg could not have sunk the Titanic. All the evidence you need is right here

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

Actually, it very much could have been a Holland Class US submarine. The splitting of the side is very similiar to what happens when a large ship is hit by a smaller projectile like a torpedo. Generally, when a battleship, or such simply 'exploded' it was due to the armory being hit, setting off hundreds of large caliber ammo.

I think it was THEM who did it

I have read about the idea that FDR provoked the Japanese, and I was inclined to agree with it. Britain may have wanted the US to help out, but we would never have done it this way. It just goes against everything Britain stood (and still stands) for. Sure, Britain wanted the high production power of the US, and the FDR was all to willing to give us it... at a price. I'm guessing it's one of the reasons why the USA rose so quickly as a superpower after the war. Europe was repairing it's ruined towns and cities, all the while paying money to the US for their help in the war. Britain only just paid off their loans from WW2 to the US this year.

When the president's approval rating is less than 20...I'd say it's the president that's on thin ice.

If the UK committed Pearl Harbor then the UK ran Japan. What about all of Japanese history? Is it just made up? Come on! This is nuts.

ADDENDUM: Also, if the British has the strength the launch a massive strike against the Americans why don't they use that strength against the Germans??!!

for theories ridiculus such as this you can also add your own like why was america late to join the world war 2 by like 4 years mayb they started it thats how stupid this theory is

their intelligence was not as great at the start of the war as at the end

everything you have is circumstantial, try this on for size
http://www.pearlharborsurvivorsonlin...e%20Attack.htm
go here and look at the many photographs, match any of the planes used in the attacks with a british plane and i will listen
changing markings is not enough, all planes do not look alike, many of the men on the ground were pilots and mechanics, if the planes had been british, markings or no, they would have known they were british


sooo, there were no british corpses found near hawaii because???
oh yeah, i forgot, at the time hawaii was totally uninhabitated right, pull the other one
it could be that he stationed them there so they wouldnt be far from territories in the pacific, since there wasnt alot of chance of a mainland attack until the islands were taken over keeping the fleet close to the mainland would have hampered their striking ability.
tell me, in this day and age when we can have a fully equiped army anywhere in the world in days, do we keep our navy close to home where the enemy cannot strike it?
i think you know the answer, we deploy them where there might be trouble, that is what they are for, to project power

of course, there was no chance that he was trying, whats that word DIPLOMACY with Tojo, hoping to get the japanese military to stop raping everything it found in china so he wouldnt have to freeze their assets and risk a war



midway was 6 months later, and it was a deliberate trap, the japanese thought it was ripe for taking becuase we told them it was, it wasnt just that US strength was greater, it was that they were prepared

moving on
as to FDR plotting pearl harbor
if he did he was an idiot, there are only 2 things that prevented our absolute loss of the pacific before the war even started. the oil storage tanks and the drydocks, if either of those had been hit then the damaged ships would have had a long tow back to california, and no fuel to do it with


regardless, there didnt have to be a massacre to get the US in the war, intercepting and defeating the attack would have been enough, so, assuming FDR knew it would occur, why not defend against it, after all, it was a surprise attack on US soil, who wouldnt see that as a justification for war, no matter how unsuccessful it was

Stop it ERMCOOL, your killing me .... with laughter. Get serious, one country attacks another country disguised. And after all thse years there is no proof, hundreds maybe thousands involved and after all these years no one speaks out about it.

Your the type who would go out and buy Oliver "Mr everythging is a conspiracy" Stones new book. It' called The Men Who Shot Liberty Valance."



Your another dreamer just like ERMCOOL.