Tora, Tora, Tora! – FLNWO #21
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
On this edition of Film, Literature and the New World Order James Perloff, author of The Shadows of Power and Truth Is A Lonely Warrior, joins us to discuss the 1970 Hollywood/Japanese production, Tora, Tora Tora! We discuss Perloff’s recent article on the Pearl Harbor deception, “Pearl Harbor: Roosevelt’s 9/11” and the pieces of the Pearl Harbor puzzle that the movie leaves out. We get into the details of where the movie came from and how it paints Pearl Harbor as a tragic accident rather than a devious deception.
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
SHOW NOTES:
Pearl Harbor: Roosevelt’s 9/11
Review of Tora, Tora, Tora in The Star-spangled Screen
Overview of “Betrayal at Pearl Harbor”
Closing The Book on Pearl Harbor
A Debate Between Budiansky and Stinnett on Naval Codes
Interview 901 – James Perloff Exposes the CFR Agenda
Interview 925 – James Perloff on “Truth Is A Lonely Warriorâ€
Last month’s episode and comments: Grave of the Fireflies – FLNWO #20
Next month: Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”
Filed in: Film, Literature & The New World Order
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Thank you for answering a nagging question. . . Why not move the ships in the harbor when an attack was suspected? A near miss would have mobilized the U.S. public as good as a direct hit. The information here is consistent with the study of a younger Roosevelt done by Dan carlin in his hardcore history series on WWI. It is conceivable that he may be willing to sacrifice life and assets to become involved in a greater war. Thank you.
Hi James, Tora^3 isn’t really a great piece of cinematography, but at least a good trigger to revisit the Pearl Harbour set up of events. 🙂
One thing I must say I do not subcribe to, is calling Pearl Harbour “false flag”. I think it is doing the term and other events injustice, when actions were taken under a real false flag or at least trying to hint they were done under another flag.
Consider there was a real interest by Japan to start of attack on Pearl Harbour as a part of attack in the pacific region (Thailand, Philippines) at the same time. Even if it was provoked by the US gov to a large extend, it was Japan’s decision to give it a start. Possibly it is worth further historic investigation on why Japan was running into this trap. Also remembering a bit of the view shown in the previous FLNWO review, I sense there was quite some support on this war in Japan itself.
Thus I personnaly put Pearl Harbour more under the label LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose), rather than MIHOP (make …). One may argue the result is just the same, but I am more after accuracy and not lumping together everything the US gov or inside forces had been doing.
Anyway thanks for an interesting episode with lots of references to follow up with.
Cheers,
Fosca
Hi James,
In your FLNWO #22 reply to my comment that False Flag is not the right term for the events of Pearl Harbour, you state your are not aware to use the term. Fully correct! It is James Perloff who does e.g. at 12:25 continued.
Cheers
Fosca
Robert Stinnett’s book Day of Deceit was mentioned in this discussion.
When I read this book I was impressed at first and believed it was well documented. I believed documents Stinnett said he had found at the National Archives in Adelphi, Maryland, would be there. Having done research there often and knowing the elderly archivist John Taylor in charge of the Pearl Harbor collection I decided to go up and view the documents.
To my surprise John Taylor said to me, “I know what you are looking for, those documents are not here.” Taylor then pulled Stinnett’s book down from the shelf in his office (he has nearly every book written on Pearl Harbor). He handed me the book and told me to carefully read the long endnote #18 for Chapter 4. The endnote contradicts itself.
I now know some of the key documents Stinnett claims to have found do not exist.
Why would he do this? Good question.