History is Not Boring discussion


Comments Showing 1-11 of 11 (11 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Manuel (last edited Sep 30, 2008 06:33PM) (new)

Manuel | 1439 comments History is full on conspiracies and those that believe them.

It seems to me the wilder the conspiracy the more people tend to believe them.

I personally think they are fun to discuss but I dont generally believe most of them.

Here are some open for discussion:

Princess Diana was murdered by the royal family.

All the Jews in the World Trade Center were warned by Israeli agents not to go to work on 9-11

The World Trade Center was an inside govt job.

The Moon landings were faked.

FDR knew there was going to be an attack on Pearl Harbor

There was more than one gunman in Dallas.

Mary, Queen of Scots knew her husband, Lord Darnley was going to be assasinated.

The Lusitania was secretly carrying arms when she was torpedoed by a German U-boat, hence the quick sinking.

Maryiln Monroe was murdured by the Kennedys

Lincoln was assasinated by patriots thinking he was going to be too lenient on the South

Elvis faked his death.

message 2: by Manuel (last edited Sep 29, 2008 07:30PM) (new)

Manuel | 1439 comments Yet another conspiracy:

Jack the Ripper was actually the Duke of Clarence; Victoria's grandson and heir to the throne.

message 3: by George (new)

George | 179 comments Well, there's certainly an element of truth to the FDR-Pearl Harbor claim. Not exactly a direct link, but it's clear that Naval intelligence knew something was up, if not a specific overwhelming air attack at Pearl itself. I'm not sure that they would have even considered such an attack possible on the scale it was launched. Admiral King did have his carrier groups away from Pearl. I imagine that if they had anticipated such an attack, they would have had at least some of the battleships out to sea as well.

message 4: by Tom (new)

Tom Foolery (tomfoolery) | 89 comments I don't put much confidence in the Pearl Harbor thing, myself. Seems to me that "they planned a sneak attack on us but we got wind of it and had an ambush waiting" would have worked at least as well as "they caught us flatfooted and sank half the fleet" at generating support for a war.

message 5: by Tom (new)

Tom Foolery (tomfoolery) | 89 comments And on the subject....The Big Book of Conspiracies

message 6: by Manuel (last edited Sep 30, 2008 06:47PM) (new)

Manuel | 1439 comments I generally dont believe they actually knew an attack was directed at Pearl Harbor on a specific day.

However many people say FDR was looking for any excuse to enter the war and help Britain.

When we declared war the next day, it was war agains Japan only.
Germany declared war on the US a few days later.

FDR loved the navy. I dont believe he would sacrifice the fleet to get the US into war. Ironically he had been at the keel laying ceremony for the Arizona when he was secretary of the Navy in 1918

message 7: by Old-Barbarossa (new)

Old-Barbarossa Conspiracy litters Hx. Actual conspiracy with hard evidence to back it up.
The problem with the more "fringe" theories though is, along with all speculative Hx, if there's no good evidence it can't be taken too seriously.
It's human nature, whether it's a few guys at the same golf club arranging a building deal a few guys in the oval office talking about Panama.
The most bizarre one I've heard is about European royalty being shapeshifting reptilian aliens...when obviously they are just inbred.

message 8: by James (new)

James An interesting and often hilarious book about fringe groups, including some out-there conspiracy theorists, is "Them: Adventures with Extremists" by Jon Ronson (he also wrote "The Men Who Stare at Goats" about the U.S. military's ventures into the paranormal.)

message 9: by George (new)

George | 179 comments I'm not saying that I believe FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, rather that we had the Japanese codes broken before the attack and certainly knew that things were moving towards war, and failed to take sufficient action on that. We were building up our defences in the Philippines and expected to have them in place in mid-42. Unfortunately, the attack there took place 6 months earlier.

It's also possible that even if we had known what was about to happen, we wouldn't have taken sufficient action to counter it. Macarthur certainly failed to react at all to the attack on Pearl and lost his entire air force at Clark the next day, losing any ability to counter Japanese forces attacking there. We lost most of the small Asiatic fleet including the USS Houston, FDR's favorite ship to go out and about on, in 42 trying to shore up the defenses of the Dutch East Indies to no particular effect.

message 10: by [deleted user] (new)

Well, I'm not as historical as ya'll probably are, but talk about crazy! : In Clive Cussler's "Saharah" he claims (If I understand him correctly) that Lincoln's body was smuggled away on one of those Civil War subs; He wasn't actually assasinated. He just died and a fake took his place so the people wouldn't panic.

PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't read the book in ages. But this talk about conspiracies reminded me of the book.

It seems to me that people like to make up conspiracy stories about assasinations mostly.

message 11: by Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady (new)

Susanna - Censored by GoodReads (susannag) | 1011 comments Mod
I would call only three out of that list even remotely possible: Mary Queen of Scots may actually have had knowledge of the assassination plot against her husband, and it's an interesting question about the Lusitania, isn't it? It sank rapidly, and the British government did its best at the time to settle the question very quickly.

And, of course, the Kennedy Assassination. I think two gunmen is possible, though we may never have proof either way.

back to top