Is it easier for skilled authors to manipulate movie viewers or book readers?

 Let me tell you from my experience. When I am watching a movie, I am usually expecting things that I like. If there are movies with things or themes that I do not like, I usually will not watch it again. But, if there is a movie with a lot of themes and things that I do like (action, suspense, thriller, comedy, for example), I will watch it again. I am also usually very involved in the movie if I really like it. That is called being manipulated. You are involved in the movie. When I am involved in a movie, or I am being manipulated by the movie, I usually will not want it to stop, and I will want to watch it again. That is what the authors, or movie directors, want. They want the audience to love their movie, so they try to add things to the movie that they think that people will like. They want to manipulate you so that you will love there movie the best. If someone makes a movie that nobody likes, nobody will want to watch it again, and directors do not want that to happen.

It is relatively easy to manipulate movie viewers. The viewers can see what is happening very easily. There are almost no confusing parts by the end of most movies. The viewers like to see what is happening instead of imagining it, like in a book. Nowadays, people do not like to use their imagination unless they have to. Movies do not require a lot of imagination like when you are reading a book.
When you read a book, you need to use your imagination. Books use a lot of words to explain, lets say the setting. While in a movie, you can see the setting and you know what it looks like. Maybe the book does not explain something very well and you think “Wait, what happened?” It is not as easy for authors to manipulate book readers than it is to manipulate movie viewers.
Now, I like to read books probably more than movies, but not a lot of people are like that. I bet that most Americans prefer to watch a movie than those who prefer to read a book. It all comes down to manipulation. Manipulation determines how long people will be interested in a book or movie, or even if they will read or watch it again. But, manipulation is different is different for every person. Somebody might like an action thriller, another might like a comedy. So they might have different opinions about a movie or a book than the other person. However, another big reason that people like movies more than books is music. Music can sway a person’s emotions more than anything else in a movie. Books do not have that. Like when I read a book, I sometimes imagine music playing in my head for different parts. My final deduction is that it is definitely easier for skilled authors to manipulate movie viewers than book readers.

According to Investopedia, “The factors of production are land, labor, entrepreneurship, and capital. These inputs are needed for the creation of goods and services.” The factors of production are the building blocks of the economy. A common way of putting “what it is worth to customers” is called value. According to Harvard Business Review, “Value in business markets is the worth in monetary terms of the technical, economic, service, and social benefits a customer company receives in exchange for the price it pays for a market offering.” How can profits arise in a free market economy if every factor of production is paid its value to customers? If people pay for a factor of production in a free market economy (where the government is in control of nothing, it is all controlled by private business owners), and they pay the value of the product (the worth in monetary terms of the benefits from a service a customer receives in exchange for the price the customer pays for the service) for the product, how can profits arise? In a free market economy, the business owners get to set the prices. But, certain services have a certain value, and business owners get to determine to set the prices of their service(s) above or below the value of their service(s). However, if all the prices were set at the value of each service, how can your profits go up? They can’t. What if the valued price of your service was below the price it kept to keep your business alive? You would go out of business. Now, some people might stay in, and get all the business, but what about the losers? Now there are more unemployed people than there were before. This can destroy the economy.

The films I am talking about in the title are “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” and “Stagecoach”. Are there any characteristic features of Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” that rocketed him to permanent stardom? Are there any characteristic features of John Wayne in “Stagecoach” that rocketed him to permanent stardom? These two people were famous actors of Hollywood’s Golden Age. They were both gifted actors, but that is not the only reason why they became so famous stars. they each also had different characteristics which made them stand out on the screen.

Jimmy Stewart was born in a small town town in Pennsylvania. This town is also where he grew up. When he was older, he wanted to attend the United States Naval Academy. However, his father insisted him to attend Princeton University instead, which he did. It was there that he majored in architecture. It was while he was in Princeton, however, that he became involved in Princeton’s drama and music clubs. He eventually decided to pursue acting rather than architecture. After graduating from Princeton, Stewart joined the University Players. This was a summer stock company for college students. It was here that he met his lifelong friend and fellow actor, James Fonda. After that summer, the two of them moved to New York City to further pursue their careers. Stewart found a few small Broadway roles between 1932 and 1934, before Fonda found success in film and moved to Hollywood. Stewart eventually stared the leading role in romantic comedy “Next Time We Love”. HE then partnered up for the first time with director Frank Capra in “You Can’t Take It With You” in 1938. They also partnered for other classics, including “It’s a Wonderful Life”. Stewart excelled in the roles where he played honest men in times of trial and hardships because he was an honest, good-hearted man who lived a mostly clean lifestyle. Because of this, he could convey a bit of relatability to the audience, as his characters struggled with life, but eventually decide to do the right thing, which any person would do or want to do in a similar situation.

John Wayne was born in 1907 in Iowa. However, was raised mainly in California. He was rejected from the United States Naval Academy. He also attended USC on a football scholarship, however, he lost the scholarship due to a bodysurfing accident. He was forced to find employment after that. Wayne found work acting for Fox Films in small parts. This lead to his first leading role in “The Big Trail” in 1930. This film was a huge flop, but it did raise Wayne’s profile, nevertheless. He appeared in several B movies, which mainly included westerns. He appeared in so many B movies that he eventually lost count himself! In 1939, Wayne’s career took a major turn when he was cast as the second billed star in “Stagecoach”, directed by John Ford. Wayne’s acting ability allowed him to play ultimately good men that many other men in the audience could connect with. Being able to connect with the audience while being a “giant” while he was onscreen was rare, and it allowed him to become an American legend.

You may have heard of the most common example of the division of labor, the pencil. If you have not, I will be explaining the division of labor on a different, but perhaps even more commonly used than the pencil, household tool, the book.

The division of labor is just as it sounds, everyone is divided into separate jobs according to the kind of labor in which each person specializes. And when people use their own skills to create things, they can make pretty simple things, but when they work together to build something, they can build incredible things, from a pencil to a skyscraper.

Do you think you can make your own book? Good luck! It is not as easy as it sounds. Lets make it simple. Can you make a piece of paper? I do not think so. To do that, you would need to cut down a tree. To cut down a tree, you would need to build your own tools to cut the tree down with. Then you would need to transport the tree somehow to a factory where the wood is made into paper. But, since you are supposed to do all of this yourself, you would need to build your own factory. You would need to get all the raw materials to build your own factory. But, you will get hungry, so you will need to eat. But where will you get food? You will have to find it yourself. You will also need a place to live. You need materials to make the materials to make the tools to just cut down a tree. You can not do it yourself. That is why the division of labor is a thing. So you do not have to anything yourself. Everything you see that was made by humans was made by the division of labor. It the division of labor did not exist, the world would be very different today.

Would You rather watch a movie alone in a theater or online if they cost the same? There are pros and cons to both. Let me explain:

First, watching a movie in a theater:

Pros: You get to watch a movie on a huge screen with surround sound. That is a big one. Plus, you get to enjoy the movie in comfortable seats. You get to enjoy the full force of the movie while enjoying yourself. And there are no annoying distractions to deal with. No phones, no children, no nothing. You also get to eat popcorn, which is a classic movie theater snack (or so I think).

Cons: The title of the essay says ‘alone in a theater’. I don’t know about you, but I prefer to watch a movie with other people I love. I like to share enjoyable moments with friends and family. Also, I will assume that ‘if they cost the same’ does not count for gas. You need gas for a car to drive to the theater, unless you live close to one so that you can walk. Also, you have to dress up for a movie theater, but some people like to dress up. And I do not mean dress up like a tuxedo or dress, just normal clothes. You wouldn’t go to a theater in PJ’s, would you?

Second, watching a movie online:

Pros: You can dress in whatever you want for it. You are not going anywhere. You’re just at home, enjoying yourself. You also get to chose what you eat and drink while you watch it. You can make noise, laugh, whatever you want. It’s your house. No one tells you what to do. And you do not have to go anywhere to see the movie. You get to stay home and watch it.

Cons: It is a small screen you have to watch it on, with no surround sound. And there can be many distractions. Children, calls, door bell, you have to pause the movie for all of these things, or at least I do. These things are annoying, but I think you know this already. And once again, the title says ‘alone… online’. You are, once again, alone. I like to enjoy a good movie with people I love, wherever that movie may be.

Assessment: Depending on all of these pros and cons (I do not think that I covered it all, you may have thought of things that I have not thought of), I think that I would like to see a movie in a theater rather than online. It mainly has to do with the giant screen and surround sound though. However, I would still like to watch a movie in a theater, but if there were people involved, and I had to chose between online with them or in a theater by myself, I would rather watch it with them online. But I would like to watch a movie in a theater with my friends. I would like to do that most.

What is the broken window fallacy? The broken window fallacy was supposed to explain the things seen and the things not seen. If someone breaks a window, the owner must use his money to replace the window. That is the thing seen. What about the thing not seen? If the window was never broken, what would the owner of the window would have used the money that was supposed to replace the broken window on? The owner of the broken window would have used that money on something else, but he had to use it on the broken window. That is the thing not seen. What the owner would have used his money on if the window was never broken. What if the owner of the window was going to buy a new suit? Before the window was broken, he had the window and the money. Now, he has only the window. Or, he will have to chose, either the window or the suit. This fallacy creates jobs (the window maker gets money for the new window) and destroys jobs (the suit-seller now can not sell a suit because the man now has to buy the window instead of the suit he wanted to buy), thus, harming the economy. And since we see the winners (the window maker) and not the losers (the suit-seller) we say the economy is better off.

According to Study.com, “Government intervention is when the government gets involved in the marketplace for the purpose of impacting the economy.

One such example of government intervention of the broken window fallacy is the money spent on war. The government takes money from people to spend on war things, like weapons, uniforms, etc. That is the thing seen. However, now that money can not be used for other things, like food, healthcare, clothing, and several other sectors of the economy. That is the thing not seen. Now, the winners in this system are the weapon manufacturers of the plane manufacturers, etc. The losers are the people who work in basically every other part of the economy, including the people the government takes money from to “fuel” their war.

What was The Birth of a Nation? According to Wikipedia, this movie was “…a 1915 American silent epic drama film directed by D. W. Griffith…” What was the goal for this movie? According to pbslearningmedia.org, “The film is considered the greatest blockbuster of the silent film era. Thomas Dixon, who wrote the book The Clansman, on which The Birth of a Nation was based, reveled in its success. “The real purpose of my film was to revolutionize Northern audiences that would transform every man into a Southern partisan for life.”

Why was this movie, “The Birth of a Nation”, the first blockbuster? First I need to answer this question: what is a blockbuster in terms of movies? According to Oxford Reference, “A film with an extremely high *production and *marketing budget that attains considerable commercial success. The term ‘blockbuster’ derives from the word used to describe large-scale bombs used in World War II.” And this movie was considered the greatest blockbuster of the silent film era. That means people really liked it. According to The Guardian, “Most of all, the audiences of 1915 were dazzled by feature-length movies that could legitimately be called blockbusters, notably the record-breaking, notorious The Birth of a Nation, DW Griffith’s racist romance of America’s Reconstruction era following the civil war.” People really like movies, especially The Birth of a Nation.

Why did people like The Birth of a Nation? This movie portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as the saviors of the South from the freedpeople, who were showed as being vicious and brutal beings. Apparently, Woodrow Wilson praised the movie. He made it the first movie to ever be showed at the White House. This movie was an incredible success. However, some people challenged the portrayal of African Americans and tried to have the movie banned and censored, but they were unsuccessful in their attempt. According to Facing History & Ourselves, “African American writer James Weldon Johnson wrote in 1915 that The Birth of a Nation did “incalculable harm” to Black Americans by creating a justification for prejudice, racism, and discrimination for decades to follow.”

Why was this movie so popular? According to Wikipedia, “Popular among white audiences nationwide upon its release, the film’s success was both a consequence of and a contributor to racial segregation throughout the U.S. In response to the film’s depictions of black people and Civil War history, African Americans across the U.S. organized and protested.” The author of the book The Clansman (the book the movie is based on), Thomas Dixon, wrote: “My object is to teach the North, the young North, what it has never known—the awful suffering of the white man during the dreadful Reconstruction period. I believe that Almighty God anointed the white men of the South by their suffering during that time . . . to demonstrate to the world that the white man must and shall be supreme.”

This movie was popular nationwide and has captivated the minds of white audiences, but angered the blacks. This movie was a great blockbuster, but that does not mean that is was a good movie.

Why wouldn’t someone voluntarily offer you a job at twice today’s minimum wage? Because, the minimum wage law must be modest. It can not be a huge wage. But why not? Why can’t there be a big wage? Start with this: if a worker feels underpaid, or if the minimum wage is above what the worker is worth, the worker will leave, and find a job that is probably not legal. But if you talk about increasing the minimum wage, the person who is leaving will be like, ‘you can not make people richer by increasing wages’. But why is this the case? People realize that if you increase someone’s wage, you will not have enough money to pay other workers, so you will have to fire people. You have to fire people to pay other workers more. And people realize this. If a huge minimum wage increase will not work, will not make people rich, ask yourself: Why not? Well, you can not pass a law to make people rich. It’s that simple. You can pass a law to make people a little better off, but you can not pass a law to make people rich. And people know they can make people better off, even if they know that they can not make them twice as better off by doubling their wage. Increasing wages will also mean an increase in prices, and businesses can not immediately pass on these increased costs to customers. And if businesses can raise the prices to pay for extra wages, why does the business not raise the prices whenever they want? And the people who quit or get fired because they are not getting the increased wage, must seek employment elsewhere. And competition lowers prices. Now the people who can’t find a job are really suffering. With lowered prices, businesses can not afford to pay new workers. Now, the state may put unemployed workers on relief, unemployment insurance. So now we have the state intervening. The state uses tax money to help unemployed people who were fired through no fault of their own, because they were not fired through any fault of their own. It is the government’s fault for increasing the minimum wage in the first place.

What is “Philip Dru”? “Philip Dru” is a book written anonymously by Edward M. House. According to Wikipedia, “Edward Mandell House was an American diplomat, and an adviser to President Woodrow Wilson. He was known as Colonel House, although his title was honorary and he had performed no military service.” “Philip Dru” was a political novel published in 1912. According to Goodreads, “The story is about a man, Philip Dru, who leads a revolt against the United States government because it had become too corrupt. After the revolution, he scraps the Constitution and makes himself “Administrator.” He then changes every concept of national and state governments to reflect his view of governance.” Here is a very quick summary: Philip Dru was a man who joined the military. He was a military genius, but he lost his sight while in a desert. He won a military competition against other military generals, soldiers, etc., held every five years, in his mid twenties. He was a military genius. He was asked to rejoin the military, but refused. He then went into politics. He discussed several issues in the book. In the end, he leads a revolt against the government because it had become too corrupt. In the end of the book, he eventually becomes the dictator of America.

Is the novel, “Philip Dru”, a defense of liberty? What is liberty? According to the Dictionary, “the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.” Liberty is the state of being free from the oppressiveness of people in government or in authority or power over you. Meaning that these people cannot stop you from doing what you want to do. They cannot stop you from freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Our three God-given rights are life, property, and liberty. That is the purpose of the government. To protect our rights. However, the government can over-reach its power. Like imposing taxes. The government makes us pay our hard earned money to them. That is a complete violation of our God-given right to property. Plus, the government just waste the tax money they ‘steal’ from us. They just give it to other government funded businesses, or they just waste it on useless things. And when the government slacks, crimes are not dealt with, the country falls into chaos. Laws are necessary for a nation to run smoothly, I think you can relate to that. However, when one person is making decisions for an entire country based on their own judgement and worldviews, the nation will fall into chaos. One man can become corrupt. Philip Dru was a dictator and made decisions based on his judgement in the book. One man cannot possibly make decisions that work for the whole nation. That is why America has different forms of government (legislative, judicial, executive), to make sure that not one person is running a country, but a group of people, making decisions for the people based on the best interests of the people. The government was made not by the people, but for the people.

That is why I think that the novel “Philip Dru” is not a defense of liberty. Having one man in charge of everything is a terrible idea.

President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was the 32nd president of the United States of America, serving from 1933-1945. He was born on January 30, 1882, and lived for 63 years until his death on April 12, 1945. He became the only president to serve three terms. Well, he really served three terms and three months of a fourth term. According to Wikipedia, “Roosevelt won a third term by defeating Republican nominee Wendell Willkie in the 1940 United States presidential election. He remains the only president to serve for more than two terms.” This man served for almost twice as long as any other president in the history of the United States of America. It is really quite impressive that he was able to do this. According to Wikipedia, “Franklin Delano Roosevelt, commonly known as FDR, was an American statesman and politician who served as the 32nd president of the United States from 1933 until his death in 1945. He was a member of the Democratic Party and is the only U.S. president to have served more than two terms.” What is he best known for? According to Wikipedia, “He created numerous programs to provide relief to the unemployed and farmers while seeking economic recovery with the National Recovery Administration and other programs. He also instituted major regulatory reforms related to finance, communications, and labor, and presided over the end of Prohibition.” He was also president during the Great Depression and World War II. That means that, of course,  he was president when the bombing of Pearl Harbor occurred and caused America to join Word War II. It is said that he knew in late November in the year 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December that same year, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific. The dating in this accusation is accurate, because the Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. However, did President Roosevelt know about the attack and failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific? I will hopefully be able to answer that question by the end of this essay.

On December 7, 1941, Japan managed to stage a surprise attack on America’s Pacific fleet located at Pearl Harbor on the island of Oahu in Hawaii. This attack completely destroyed the US’s Pacific fleet, making the Japanese successful in the attack. The military commanders in the Pacific had no idea of the attack until it was too late. The Japanese decimated the fleet. If the commanders in the Pacific had any idea that the Japanese would be attacking, the attack might have had a different outcome. It is said that President Roosevelt knew in late November that the Japanese would attack American forces in the Pacific in early December, however, he failed to warn military commanders in the Pacific. If this is true, then how did he know the Japanese would attack? And if so, how did he fail to warn military commanders in the Pacific? Did the message just not get there in time? Did he just chose not to warn them? There are several possible answers to these questions, and hopefully I will be able to answer them correctly by the end of this essay.

Did President Roosevelt know in late November that the Japanese would attack in early December? Actually, yes. The United States did know in late November, early December that the Japanese would attack. According to tamucc.edu, “So, the US Government did know about the attack  on Pearl Harbor and it tried to cover up the knowledge of it. But let’s not forget that they did not just know about the attack from the Japanese, but that they instigated Japan into attacking the US.” So, the United States knew that the Japanese would attack the US in early December, however, how do we know this is accurately true? According to Independent Institute, “On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers.” So we know that the US really did know that the Japanese would attack, which meant that President Roosevelt knew.

How did President Roosevelt know that the Japanese would attack? I literally just told you, if you remember the last paragraph. On the date December 25, 1941, the Admiral Yamamoto of Japan sent a radio message to the Japanese fleet of warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, and America intercepted these transmissions, however, they only got enough information to know that Japan would attack, America did not know when, or even where the Japan navy would attack. Naval records that were recently released prove that the United States have intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to the fleet from November 17 to 25. And if the United States government knew, then President Roosevelt knew. These naval records prove that America really did intercept transmissions from Japan to the naval fleet that was supposed to be attacking Pearl Harbor. However, did Japan know that America was intercepting their transmissions? Think about it this way: if Japan knew that America was intercepting its transmissions, would they still have attacked? Maybe, but I do not think we will ever know for sure.

However, this just raises another question: If the United States knew that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor, why were they not warned, or prepared for an attack? Well, the Americans knew that the Japanese would attack, however, they did not know where they would attack. So really, the U. S. knew of an attack, they just did not know where Japan would attack. Some American officials figured that the Philippines were the target of the attack, so the Philippines were warned of an attack and put on alert. The idea that the Japanese would attack something as far out as Pearl Harbor was considered to be ludicrous, therefore Pearl Harbor was not warned of an attack. That was a big mistake.

Japan actually ended up attacking Pearl Harbor on December 7. And because Pearl Harbor was not warned of an attack, they were not ready for an attack. Japan surprised Pearl Harbor with the attack, and Japan ended up being successful in its attack. It was the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor that America declared war on Japan and officially entered World War II. And this was because Pearl Harbor was never warned of an attack. If they were warned of an attack, they might have at least been ready for an attack. Maybe Japan might not have even succeeded in its attack.

However, this brings another question to my mind: Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor? The answer is quite simple. Japan wanted to build an Empire of its own. However, it lacked the resources to do so. For one thing, 96% of Japan’s oil supply was being imported. When Japan occupied French Indochina in 194, America retaliated by freezing all of Japan’s assets in the U. S., cutting off 96% of Japan’s oil supply. Because of this, Japan then decided to take oil by force. However, Japan feared that if they attacked British Malaya and the Dutch East Indies in the south they would provoke the U. S. into entering World War II, so to eliminate the threat of the U. S. entering World War II, Japan decided to attack Pearl Harbor, hoping that the U. S. would negotiate peace. However, because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U. S. did not try to negotiate peace. Instead, the day after the attack, the U. S. declared war on Japan and officially entered World War II. This is not what Japan was expecting. In fact, this is exactly the opposite of what Japan was expecting America to do. They attacked America to make sure that America did not join World War II because they knew America was too strong. It was actually America that defeated Japan at the end of the war, by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. Because of the U. S. entering the war, Japan has less of a chance of actually winning the war, which they eventually did lose. It would have been better if Japan just did not attack Pearl Harbor, and they probably know it, whether they do admit it, or they do not (now that I look back at this information, it really is not that simple after all, is it?).

If you look at it right, you could see that the U. S. is the cause (somewhat) for the U. S. entering World War II. If the U. S. did not cut off oil imports to Japan, Japan would have no reason to take oil by force, so there would be no need to worry about provoking the U. S., so Japan would not have attacked Pearl Harbor in an attempt to make the U. S. try to negotiate peace, so the U. S. would not have entered the war. I do not expect you to agree with me. I am just simply stating that the U. S. might be the reason for why the U. S. entered the war, if you can understand me right.

But I get, right? The U. S. just retaliated to Japan’s occupation of French Indochina. And I get it. The U. S. had no idea that Japan would try to attack other countries and try to obtain oil by force. I mean, I would have retaliated (probably) the same way. Although, the U. S. did not have to retaliate. They could have just left them alone and stayed neutral. But they did retaliate, and look at where that got them. They ended up entering World War II, which was not a good thing to have been done. And they had the choice not to join World War II, but they ended up joining anyway. They could have just ignored it, but they did not, they retaliated. And because of this (part of the reason), Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to scare America into submission. But, they ended up joining World War II anyway, which is exactly the opposite of what Japan was expecting.

President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific. This statement is almost completely true. America knew that Japan was going to attack American forces in early December, and America knew this in late November. And if America knew, then the President knew. That we know. However, he did not fail to contact American military commanders in the Pacific. He just warned the wrong military commanders. Remember when I said that America thought the Philippines were the target of the attack? It’s true. America did think that the Philippines were the target of the target of the attack they knew Japan was planning. However, the idea of Japan attacking something as far out as Pearl Harbor was considered ludicrous and crazy. So they were not warned of an attack. The statement “President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific.” , is only half true. President Roosevelt knew that Japan would attack, but they did not know where. So they warned the wrong area of an attack! President Roosevelt did not forget to warn the military commanders in the Pacific of an attack, he just warned the wrong military commanders of an attack!

The statement “President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific.” is only half true. This is because America knew that Japan would attack, they just did not know where. So America warned the military commanders they though were the target, but did not warn Pearl Harbor because the idea to attack Pearl Harbor was considered ludicrous, but are there any other reasons why Pearl Harbor was not warned of an attack? This can not be the only reason the Pearl Harbor was not warned of an attack. Now, it may have been the number one reason, but it could not have been the only reason. And it wasn’t.

There was also a communications delay which prevented the warning from getting there in time. So apparently, America knew that Japan would attack, they just did not know where. So they put the Philippines on alert because they thought that they were the target of the attack. However, the idea of attacking Pearl Harbor was considered ludicrous and crazy. However, apparently they warned Pearl Harbor anyway. What stinks is that there was a communications delay which prevented the warning from getting there in time. Also, America thought that an attack on Pearl Harbor was impossible because they thought that Japan knew that Pearl Harbor was alert and prepared for an attack, so America thought that because Japan knew this, they would not attack Pearl Harbor. However, whether Japan knew this or not, they still attacked. So really, America was warned of an attack, but the message did not get to Pearl Harbor in time, so it was as if it was never sent. It was sent, but it did not get there in time, so it was as if it was never sent.

Did Japan know that America was picking up its transmissions from Japan to its fleet which was going to be attacking Pearl Harbor? America was picking up Japan’s transmissions and figured out that they were going to attack, but did Japan know that America was picking up its transmissions? I do not think that they did, otherwise they might have backed off, since this was supposed to be a surprise attack. But, we will never know because we do not know if Japan knew that America was picking up its transmissions to the attacking fleet in the Pacific. We do not know if Japan knew that America was intercepting its transmissions because if Japan did know, they probably would have not carried out the attack, but they did. So there are two ways this could have turned out. Japan could have known and backed off from the attack, but they did not. Or, Japan could have known, but they attacked anyway because they were ‘past the point of no return’, so they did it anyway. Or they could have just not known, because they still attacked, which would indicate that the most likely reason is that they just did not know, which is probably what happened. If Japan knew that America was picking up its transmissions, would you think that Japan would still attack? Probably not. But we will never really know.

President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific. I feel like we have gone over this topic numerous times already, but I think it is good to review it. So, President Roosevelt did know that Japan would attack an American base (because of the intercepted transmissions), but they did not know where. So, they warned the Philippines because America thought that they were the target, but they also tried to warn Pearl Harbor, even though the thought that Japan would attack something as far out as Japan was considered ludicrous. However, there was a communications delay, so they never got the message. So President Roosevelt did try to warn American military commanders in the Pacific, but there was a communications delay, so they never got the message. Also, the thought that Pearl Harbor would be the target of the attack was thought to be crazy, so not a lot of people really cared.

However, it is not their fault, so do not think it is. They did not know where Japan would attack. All they knew is that Japan would attack. They did not know where. It is completely understandable that they thought that the Philippines were the target of the attack. The Philippines are much closer to Japan, and Pearl Harbor is way out in the Pacific. Plus, they did try to warn Pearl Harbor, there was just a communications delay which prevented the warning from getting there in time.

President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific. President Roosevelt did know that Japan would attack, because of the intercepted transmissions taken from the Japan base sent to the fleet that was supposed to be attacking Pearl Harbor. However, all America got out of it was that Japan would attack, but they did not figure out where. So America warned the most likely target: the Philippines. However, Pearl Harbor was warned as well. But the message got delayed, so it never got to then. Does this situation count as failing to warn Pearl Harbor? America did try to warn Pearl Harbor, but the message got delayed. Does this count as failing to warn Pearl Harbor? I think it does. They tried to warn Pearl Harbor, so that was good, however, the message did not get to them in time. It does not matter how the message did not get there, it failed to get there in time. President Roosevelt did fail to warn military commanders in the Pacific, but he did try to warn them. But he did fail. It was not his fault that he failed, there was nothing he could do to speed up the time it took for the message to get to Pearl Harbor in time, but it never got there, so he did fail. It really stinks, but it is true, he did fail.

So when I said that the statement “President Roosevelt President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific.” is only half true, that was when I was only half way through examining the statement. Now that I have examined all of it, I see now that it is all true. This entire statement is totally true. President Roosevelt did know that Japan would attack, but he did not know where. He warned military commanders in the Philippines because that was the most likely target, but he failed to warn military commanders in the Pacific, because the message was delayed and did not get there in time. You may not consider him not getting the message to Pearl Harbor in time a failure, but he tried to do something, and it did not work out. That is what I (and maybe a lot of other people, maybe you do not and that is okay) call a failure, but that does not mean that I think it was his fault, because it was not his fault. There was nothing he could have done to make the message get to Pearl Harbor in time. It was out of his hands from the moment he sent it. The message just did not get there in time, and that was a terrible thing to have happen, especially at that time. If it was delayed at any other time, it would have been fine, but it just had to have been delayed at that time. Things like that just happen, I guess. Also, I do not think that people really cared if the message got there in time, because people thought that Pearl Harbor was not the target of the attack, and the Philippines were. People thought that the idea of an attack on Pearl Harbor was ludicrous and impossible. So, they did not really think the idea of warning Pearl Harbor was beneficial to anything, but they did it anyway, but it was delayed, so nobody really thought much of it. America thought that the Philippines were the target of the attack because they are just south-west of Japan. The Philippines are much closer to Japan than Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, which is way out East in the Pacific. It is much farther away than the Philippines, so much farther away that people thought that the thought of Japan attacking Pearl Harbor was crazy, so they really did not think much of warning them. Especially when America has a base in the Philippines, which is much closer to Japan than Pearl Harbor.

You may not have noticed this, but I have mentioned that America joining World War II due to the attack on Pearl Harbor was the opposite of what Japan was expecting from America. Well, it is true. Japan attacked America to scare them into surrendering to them, so they would not think of joining World War II, because Japan knew that America could destroy them if they wanted to, which is what ended up happening at the end of the war (two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan by America). However, America joined World War II because of this attack, which is not what Japan wanted. This is precisely the opposite of what Japan wanted to happen. It would have been better if Japan did not attack, because Japan would not have been bombed by America if Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor. Attacking Pearl Harbor was a big mistake. And I am sure that even Japan knows that it would have been better if they just did not attack Pearl Harbor at all. Would Japan even have still attacked Pearl Harbor if they knew that America was intercepting their transmissions? We know that Japan did attack, so whether Japan did or did not know that its transmissions were being intercepted, they still attack. Now, whether they did not know and they attacked, or they did know but just did it anyway, they attacked. You cannot change the past. However, if Japan did know that America was intercepting its transmissions, they might not have attacked. It was a possibility, but, they still attacked, so we will probably never know for sure. Though, it is most likely that Japan did not know America was picking up its transmissions, because if they did the attack on Pearl Harbor might have had a different outcome, because Japan did know America was intercepting its transmissions, Japan might not have even attacked. These are just things to think about.

What was the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor? According to Census.gov, “The attack killed 2,403 U.S. personnel, including 68 civilians, and destroyed or damaged 19 U.S. Navy ships, including 8 battleships. The three aircraft carriers of the U.S. Pacific Fleet were out to sea on maneuvers.” According to Wikipedia, “Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor took place on December 7, 1941. The United States military suffered 19 ships damaged or sunk, and 2,403 people were killed. Its most significant consequence was the entrance of the United States into World War II.” According to National Archives (.gov), “Following the devastating attack, Congress declared war on Japan, bringing America officially into World War II. All of the Pearl Harbor battleships save three, the USS Arizona, the USS Oklahoma, and the USS Utah, were raised, rebuilt, and put back into service during the war.” The casualties of Pearl Harbor were devastating. No wonder why America declared war on Japan and entered World War II. America even declared war on Japan the day after the attack, on December 8, 1941. The casualties were devastating. 2,403 people were killed in this attack, along with 19 Navy ships. But I feel like the worst part about the attack on Pearl Harbor is the reason it is most remembered for: the beginning of the entrance of America into World War II, which was a lot more devastating to not just the military and its soldiers, but also to U. S. civilians as well, than Pearl Harbor could have ever been. America could have ignored this attack and not entered World War II and just stayed neutral, but I understand why they did not do this. 2,403 people were killed in this attack, which is reason enough to declare war on Japan, but to top it all off, Japan also destroyed 19 Navy ships and obliterated the Naval base at Pearl Harbor. It was no wonder why America declared war on Japan. The effects of this attack were horrible. I feel like if President Roosevelt’s message got to Pearl Harbor on time and did not get delayed, then the attack would not have been so terrible. Pearl Harbor would have been ready for an attack. It was because Pearl Harbor was not warned of an attack that made the attack the most devastating. Japan surprised Pearl Harbor with the attack. If the message got there in time, Pearl Harbor would have been ready, and Japan might not have succeeded in its attack. But, World War II was more terrible for America than the attack on Pearl Harbor could have ever been, and they could have avoided it, but they did not. I think that America would have been better off if it had never entered World War II and just ignored the attack on Pearl Harbor.

And to think, all this devastation started with Japan occupying French Indochina. America was not happy with this, so America retaliated by cutting off all Japan’s oil imports from America, so Japan then had to take oil by force because 96% of it was imported. However, they feared that this would spark America into joining Japan’s enemies and enter World War II, so they attacked Pearl Harbor, wanting to scare America into surrendering and negotiating peace. However, this attack only angered America into joining World War II anyway. The entire attack was pointless. The only outcome of the attack on Pearl Harbor was 2,403 dead people, 19 destroyed Navy ships, and the complete obliteration of the military base at Pearl Harbor.

Here is a final report of the statement “President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific.” President knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December. How did he know this? On the date December 25, 1941, the Admiral Yamamoto of Japan sent a radio message to the Japanese fleet of warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7 (however, America did not know when or where the Japan navy would attack). Naval records that were recently released prove that the United States have intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to the fleet from November 17 to 25. And if the United States government knew, then President Roosevelt knew. President Roosevelt knew that Japan would attack, but they did not know where they would attack, or when they would attack. So America sent a warning to the Philippines because they though that the Philippines were the most likely target. The thought of Japan attacking anything as far out as Pearl Harbor was considered ludicrous and crazy. However, they sent a warning to them anyway. However, there was a message delay and it did not get there in time. So Pearl Harbor was not warned of an attack, and Japan attacked Pearl Harbor which was not ready for an attack because they never received the warning, which is why Japan was successful in its attack on Pearl Harbor (remember the reason Japan attacked America, they wanted to scare America into negotiating peace, but their plan did not work, instead, America joined World War II, which is what Japan did not want to have happen). Remember, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they wanted to attack British Malaya and the Dutch East Indies in the south, but they feared this would trigger America into entering World War II, which they did not want to have happen, so they attacked Pearl Harbor to try to scare America into surrendering, but America instead entered World War II which Japan did not want to have happen. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor so that America would not enter World War II, but America did not surrender like Japan wanted, but entered World War II, which was the opposite reason for why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in the first place. Was the message not getting to Pearl Harbor in time considered failure to warn American military commanders in the Pacific? I think it was. The goal was to warn Pearl Harbor, but they were not warned in time, so I consider it a failure. President Roosevelt did know that Japan was going to attack, so he warned Pearl Harbor, but there was a communications delay which prevented the message from getting there in time, so he failed in warning Pearl Harbor of an attack. The statement “President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific” is totally and completely true.

It took a little longer than I expected, but it looks like I answered the question of this essay in extreme detail, don’t you think? It doesn’t matter, because I answered this statement with all that I know.

 This essay was supposed to be a debate paper, but it does not look like one, does it? But, it is. And I have stated the points about why I think this statement “President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific.” Now it is time for me to determine if this is accurate, or not. However, you probably already know that I will say that yes, this statement is true. President Roosevelt did know that Japan would attack, and he did try to warn Pearl Harbor, but he failed because the message did not get there in time.