Changes

: Could be that the warning signs were erroneously rejected without word getting to [[FDR]], but that seems a bit cavalier in dealing with an attack, doesn't it?  Many doubt U.S. intelligence was really that weak.  After all, the U.S. had clearly broken the Japanese code prior to the attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:35, 13 August 2008 (EDT)r

: Could be that the warning signs were erroneously rejected without word getting to [[FDR]], but that seems a bit cavalier in dealing with an attack, doesn't it?  Many doubt U.S. intelligence was really that weak.  After all, the U.S. had clearly broken the Japanese code prior to the attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:35, 13 August 2008 (EDT)r

::It's possible - WW2 is littered with examples of good intelligence being ignored to the detriment of either side. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]_{[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]} 09:09, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's possible - WW2 is littered with examples of good intelligence being ignored to the detriment of either side. Although now you have me thinking. First question is why? It would be deliberate treason to allow most of the fleet to be wiped out, giving the Japanese short-term superiority (once Renown and Prince of Wales were sunk too). What could the motivation for that be, besides enter the US into the War, which probably would have happened soon anyway. Then again, were some key ships not moved from harbour a short time before the attack (sorry, my knowledge of the history of the War tends to be more focussed on the Japanese home front, obviously). If they had been in port and destroyed too, the fleet may never have recovered. Why did they leave so soon before the attack (again, I am assuming they did) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]_{[[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']]} 09:27, 13 August 2008 (EDT)