It's not quite so simple as considering all leaks of government information heroic. For instance, would it have been heroic to leak news that U.S. code breakers had cracked enemy codes in WW2?
Even better, what if the government was closing in a child pornographer with chemical weapons and a nuke, and the leak allowed him to rape more children while nuking a nunnery and poisoning an orphanage?
This is possibly a reasonable argument for keeping things confidential temporarily. It's not a justification for keeping information confidential indefinitely.
Like, for instance, that the Japanese diplomatic codes had been broken and that the administration had prior knowledge of an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor, yet chose to do nothing, because the public response would finally allow the U.S. to enter the war?
Absolutely, it would have been heroic. It might have led to real justice instead of ruinous warmongering.
It seems that we're fated to see every conspiracy theory on hn eventually. Wikipedia covers the SIGINT available prior to Pearl Harbor pretty well[1]. There is no evidence that anyone in the entire U.S. civilian or military hierarchy had advance knowledge of the attack.
Firstly, it is a conspiracy hypothesis. There is no expectation that it conforms with the facts of history. It was presented to illustrate how a timely leak of a secret might have impacted history positively, rather than negatively, as implied in a previous post.
Secondly, even if it were remotely true, there would have been significant incentives for any involved parties to alter or hide any evidence. History continues to be written by the victors, and crackpots continue to doubt it.
There's a much easier point to be made: If (i) Wikipedia doesn't mention it, and (ii) it's important enough that it would be reasonable to expect Wikipedia to mention it if there were evidence, then you should at least provide a citation as to why you believe such a thing. Otherwise, why should your readers accept your unsubstantiated hypothesis?
why should your readers accept your unsubstantiated hypothesis
The typical line of thinking with conspiracy theories seems to be the less substantiated the theory, the more credence it should be lent, under the logic that the government is suppressing evidence.
So basically the less evidence, the more believable. Beautiful, isn't it?
Heroic how exactly? If the US had not entered the war when it did, the whole of Europe, and perhaps the rest of the world, would have probably ended up under Nazi control.
There are many instances of Allied forces breaking codes but not acting on them, because to do so would have signalled to the enemy that their codes had been broken and the advantage would be lost. This comes back to my post further down, most individuals simply don't know the bigger picture!
It's true the US had an isolationist movement, and even business ties to Germany, but it would have eventually entered the war against Nazi Germany. After all, it was already supporting its allies (UK, Soviet Union, etc) via materiel through the Lend-Lease program, before the attack on Pearl Harbor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-lease )
Also, without wanting to diminish the participation of the US in the war, most of the effort was done by other countries, such as the Soviet Union.
Doubtless the final shape of Europe would have been different if the US had entered the war later, but Germany would have been defeated anyway.
What if the US stayed out of Europe and only declared war against Japan? If the US had invaded Manchuria while Stalin was still busy with Europe, the Chinese civil war might have panned out differently.
I think that unlikely. Germany would have fallen to the Russians. Soviet Europe would have stayed that way for a few decades before reverting to independent mixed economies. The real question is what would have happened between China and Japan, without the American nukes.
You are implying that there was a good vs evil paradigm with WWII which is completely a USA fallacy.
Both sides were being funded by the central banking cartel. Do you actually think there would be any difference if you were living under Nazi control or not?
Look at all the astroturfing of the phrase "6 million Jews" in WWI before Hitler even came in to power.
Whilst I do partly agree with your comment from a very existentialist viewpoint[1]. This has to be the worst comment I've seen on HN.
[1] Yes, there would be a big difference to living under Nazi control or not. Whether we would know, or care, is another matter. Homosexuality and Judaism would surely be non-existent, but would that bother us if everything around us is 'Nazi' and the very idea of Judaism or Homosexuality didn't exist? Much like most peoples attitudes towards witchcraft. We are all a product of our society.
Kind sir, we appear to have run out of Nazi extermination camps. However, I invite you to book a one-way trip to North Korea. I hear their concentration camps are wonderful this time of the year.
I guess taking on that quote was a pot-shot. And, yes, the US have a role to play in North Korea. After all the Kims, at least initially, built their reputation in Korea on fighting the Americans.
