[ESP0704]

I'm not sure I agree that FDR encouraged and allowed the Pearl Harbor attack, but if he did, it was a masterstroke, particularly because the Navy's aircraft carriers (conveniently, some say) were out of harm's way when the attack came).

However (and this is where I think the conspiracy theory breaks down to an extent), much conventional wisdom in December 1941 held that the battleship was still the major naval weapon, and the battleships were all sitting in Pearl. The Japanese attack went a long way in exploding that myth (literally) and clearing the way for carriers to be the kings of naval warfare.

However, as I said, I'm still open to arguments. And even if the conspiracy is true, FDR carried out a masterstroke in drawing the Japanese into a major military blunder at Pearl because it drew us into a two-front war we had the resources, in terms of manpower and industrial base, to win. Additionally, the attack put Germany and Japan, into a two-front war they couldn't win.

I've also considered that the A-bombs were a message to the Soviet Union, which had already made the transition from ally to enemy in the two-months between the victory in Europe and victory in Japan.

I just don't think it's as important, from a moral standpoint as the fact that Japanese culture, to a great extent, exists today because we dropped (at least the first, because the second one might not have been necessary to bring about the surrender) the atomic bomb.

78: I agree wholeheartedly with your contention that the Soviet Union, through the sacrifice of more than 20 million of its soldiers and civilians -- by the far the greatest loss of life of any WWII combatant -- did nothing less than save the world. Had the Germans been able to make quick work of the Russians, as happened in WWI (mostly because of Russia's political turmoil), they would have been able to turn on Britain, which was reeling from its losses across Europe.