Skeptoid 4: Astronauts, Aliens, and Ape-Men

by Brian Dunning

  North American countries, by contrast, do not have anywhere near the currency-related problems that Europe faced before the euro. We simply don’t have an unmanageable number of international transactions suffering from fluctuating exchange rates and expensive conversions. Mexico suffered these problems historically, but when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1994, it had a rocky start, but followed by a hugely stabilizing effect on Mexico’s economy and ever since, their problems have been largely mitigated. Arguably, NAFTA has addressed many of the issues for North Americans that Europeans solved with the euro. We just had those problems on a far smaller scale, and so our fix was correspondingly less drastic.

  But that doesn’t mean nobody’s ever proposed an amero. There’s been talk of it for a long time, mainly from a small number of Canadian economists. Quebec is one faction in North America that would actually benefit from an amero, and Mexico is probably the other. But since the United States and the majority of Canada would not, the amero is unlikely to ever proceed beyond the ruminations of these few authors.

  In the real world, the introduction of an amero would probably have real benefits for a few, but none for the majority. Historically, the amero’s proponents have been Quebec and Mexico. Quebec’s perspective is an interesting one. They have a certain degree of French-Canadian nationalism, and being part of Canada and tied to its currency rubs this nationalism the wrong way. If they shared an amero with everyone else in North America, it would make them less dependent on Canada economically and freer to trade directly with the United States. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox expressed his desire for an amero openly, on multiple occasions, as a natural followup to NAFTA. Such economic unions often confer more benefit upon those at the bottom of the food chain that those at the top. Mexico would benefit from increased stability, while Canada and the United States would lose control of their own inflation and interest rates.

  Canadian professor of economics Herb Grubel wrote a 1999 paper for the Canadian think tank The Fraser Institute called The Case for the Amero, but in it he admitted that his arguments were probably less important to the governments of Canada and the United States than the need to maintain control over their own monetary independence. The other most significant proponent has been Dr. Robert Pastor, professor of political science and former national security advisor under President Jimmy Carter. In his 2001 book Toward a North American Community, he pointed out the benefits of an amero for Latin America, but failed to convince very many people that it had any benefits for the United States. He did admit in the book that an amero was unlikely to happen, and has said that he absolutely does not support a North American Union.

  So with academic and economic expertise in agreement that neither a North American Union nor even an amero make much sense, what support remains? Well, unfortunately, it’s really just of the conspiracy theory variety, drawing its evidence from misinterpretations and exaggerations of actual events.

  One such actual event feeding the conspiracy theory is a group formed by businessmen and academics from Canada, the United States, and Mexico called the Independent Task Force on North America. It’s sponsored by nonprofit think tanks from all three nations. Created in 2004 in a post-9/11, post-NAFTA world, it advocates closer economic and security cooperation among the three nations, generally all good ideas. They do not advocate either an amero or a North American Union, all of their reports are freely available, and there’s no secrecy attached to anything they do. Nevertheless, some conspiracy theorists consider their existence to be proof that the North American Union is already happening.

  A similar, but more official, group was called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, formed in 2005 by Vicente Fox, George W. Bush, and Paul Martin, who met for dialog for essentially these same purposes, and was active through 2009. It included no treaties or agreements. The US web site for the SPP says in its “Myth vs. Fact” section:

  ...The SPP [seeks] to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency.

  But nevertheless, you can say this up and down and standing on your head; the diehard conspiracy theorists dismiss such a statement as just another part of the coverup. Notably, in June of 2006, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs described the SPP, on the air, as an agreement (which it wasn’t) to actually form the North American Union without the consent of Congress (which it didn’t).

  ...The Bush administration is pushing ahead with a plan to create a North American Union with Canada and Mexico. You haven’t heard about that? Well, that’s because Congress hasn’t been consulted, nor the American people.

  Dobbs is not the only one. Believers all across the Internet say “Hey, it happened in Europe; it can happen here in North America.” The European Union is indeed a reality, so by that example, it’s plausible that a North American Union could happen as well, right? The European Union is actually not a real-world precedent for what the North American Union is believed to be. The EU is primarily an economic union. All the member nations in the EU are still sovereign nations, holding their own independent elections and issuing their own passports, and no European citizens are being forced into labor camps or executed by the millions. Conversely, the claims about the North American Union have the United States, Canada, and Mexico merged into a single police state characterized by brutality and forced socialism.

  The former Soviet Union would be a closer precedent, but still not a very good one. It was a police state characterized by brutality and forced socialism, but there are two very important points to heed. First, the Soviet Union was the result of a popular uprising by the people, the Russian Revolution; it was not a secret takeover by hidden Illuminati intent on deceiving the masses. The Bolsheviks were a majority party, and there was nothing secret about them. Second, the Soviet Union didn’t last, and remains a dramatic example of why such a union is a bad idea for everyone; not just for the people, but for everyone hoping to benefit from it.

  Like all conspiracy theories that claim to predict future events, the North American Union requires reliance on supposition and irrational dismissal of evidence. Anyone who thinks the United States is likely to give up its sovereignty has, shall I say politely, “lost a few tiles on re-entry.” Ask healthy questions and maintain a healthy skepticism; but if you catch yourself departing a little too far afield, take it as a red flag and point your skeptical eye at yourself as well.

  REFERENCES & FURTHER READING

  Baldwin, R. “The Euro’s Trade Effects.” European Central Bank Working Paper Series. 1 Mar. 2006, Number 594: 48.

  Chintrakarn, P. “Estimating the Euro Effects on Trade with Propensity Score Matching.” Review of International Economics. 1 Feb. 2008, Volume 16, Issue 1: 186-198.

  Dobbs, L. “Lou Dobbs Tonight (Transcript).” Cable News Network. Time Warner, 21 Jun. 2006. Web. 8 Jun. 2010.

  Grubel, H. “The Case for the Amero.” Fraser Institute Critical Issues Bulletin. 1 Jan. 1999, 1999 Edition.

  Pastor, R. Toward a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 2001.

  SPP. “SPP Myths vs Facts.” Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America. US Department of Commerce, 21 Aug. 2006. Web. 9 Jun. 2010.

  28. ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR

  Did the American government have advance knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, and allow it to happen?

  Every schoolchild knows the story of December 7, 1941, “A date which will live in infamy”. Japanese aircraft carriers crept to within striking distance of Hawaii and launched a morning sneak attack that struck at 7:55am. Two waves of 354 Japanese bomb
ers, dive-bombers, torpedo bombers, and fighters decimated an unprepared U.S. Pacific Fleet. They sank four battleships and two destroyers and heavily damaged eleven other ships, destroyed or damaged 343 aircraft, killed 2,459 servicemen and civilians, and injured 1,282 others. Less than 24 hours after the first bomb fell, the United States declared war on Japan. One question has plagued the conspiracy minded ever since: Was the United States truly caught by surprise, or did the government have advance knowledge of the attack and allow it to happen, as an excuse to declare war?

  We should begin by establishing that the overwhelming majority of historians are not moved by this theory. It is promoted really only by a few authors and anti-government activists. However, that doesn’t make it wrong. Most Americans have heard the theory suggested, usually in the context of it being an open question. It’s not. The jury is not “out” on this one, despite a tiny minority of amateur historians making a majority of the noise. But as we always do on Skeptoid, we’ll give the fringe their day and look at their evidence.

  Perhaps the most popularly known clue is that the United States’ three aircraft carriers were safely out of harm’s way. They were out on maneuvers, and were not in port in Pearl Harbor with the rest of the Pacific Fleet. If the American commanders wanted the attack to happen, they would probably still choose to protect their most valuable assets.

  Less well known is that a Japanese midget submarine was spotted at 3:42am, four hours before the attack began. A destroyer, the USS Ward, was called in which failed to find that sub, but did find and sink a second sub at 6:37am, still more than an hour before the air strike. The Ward radioed in “We have attacked, fired upon, and dropped depth charges on a submarine operating in defensive sea areas.” Would not this action have put the Fleet on high alert, unless someone overruled it?

  At 7:02am, a full 53 minutes before the first bomb fell, radar operators at Opana Point detected the incoming Japanese aircraft. They alerted their superior, Lt. Kermit Tyler, who failed to make any report, but did however take his men away from their posts and to breakfast. Tyler’s lack of action has long been considered suspicious by the conspiracy theorists.

  Indeed, nearly a full year before the attack, the Commander-in-chief of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral Husband Kimmel, wrote to Washington:

  I feel that a surprise attack (submarine, air, or combined) on Pearl Harbor is a possibility, and we are taking immediate practical steps to minimize the damage inflicted and to ensure that the attacking force will pay.

  Then, ten days before the attack, Kimmel was ordered to make just such a defensive deployment of the Fleet. And yet, on that morning, the ships were sitting ducks at their berths, the men asleep in their bunks, and most of the American aircraft were parked on the fields in plain view, packed into tight bunches, as if to deliberately make easy targets. It’s also been pointed out that since the ships were sunk in the harbor, most were raised and repaired. Had they been sunk at sea they would have been lost. If you wanted to be attacked, but also wanted to be able to bounce back, this was the way to do it.

  Combined with the fact that the Americans had broken the primary Japanese diplomatic code called Purple and made some progress breaking the military code JN-25, and had access to some Japanese intelligence, it seems hard to reach any conclusion other than the United States knew the attack was coming and deliberately allowed it to happen.

  Or, at least, so we might conclude if we considered only the above points. But it turns out that if we examine each of these points not just with a narrow focus to see only the suspicious side, and look at the complete event in context, no good arguments for a conspiracy remain. Most of the points made by conspiracy theorists were raised by the 2000 book Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett, who really boiled down the innuendo from the preceding 59 years and condensed it into a cohesive conspiracy. However, it should be noted that many more authors (almost all others) find him to be wrong. Chief among these is probably Pearl Harbor: Final Judgment from 1992, written by Henry Clausen. In 1944, the Secretary of War ordered Clausen, then a lawyer in the U.S. Judge Advocate’s office, to conduct an independent investigation into what really happened in the days and months leading up to Pearl Harbor, and to find out who screwed up. His report remained top secret until its substance was finally published in this book.

  Clausen found plenty of sloppiness, but nothing that could be characterized as a cool, smoothly-running conspiracy. Agencies operated independently, decoding Japanese transmissions and then filing them away rather than sharing them. There was plenty of knowledge that hostility was building, but no experience in how to deal with it and no specific knowledge that it was so imminent. Roosevelt knew as much as anyone, and issued warnings and ordered preparations that were poorly handled all the way down the line.

  One thing that conspiracy theorists and historians agree upon is that Admiral Kimmel was unjustly made the scapegoat for Pearl Harbor. Ten days after the attack, he was reduced in rank and replaced by Admiral Nimitz. It’s also agreed that he did the best he could given the limited amount of intelligence Washington shared with him, and this is one point where the conspiracy theory simultaneously kicks in and breaks down. Historians say he was held accountable for bad decisions; conspiracy theorists say he was made the scapegoat for the secret orders from Washington. But, nearly everything that happened at Pearl Harbor was on Kimmel’s own orders. Let’s look at some.

  Admiral Husband Kimmel

  When Kimmel received the order to assume defensive positions ten days before the attack, viable threats at the time were from espionage and sabotage, not actual attacks. Thus the aircraft were moved out into the open and tightly packed, where they could be best guarded against saboteurs. The ships were similarly grouped in the harbor. It was the wrong interpretation of the order, but it was a reasonable one in the context of what Kimmel knew was happening.

  How true is it that the three carriers were safely hidden out at sea? Not very. The carriers were not clustered safely together; they were widely scattered throughout the Pacific on separate duties. Being alone out at sea even with their carrier groups, each isolated far away and unable to support one another, was not at all considered safe. The USS Saratoga was just coming out of a lengthy overhaul in Seattle and was underway to Pearl Harbor via San Diego at the time of the attack, but the USS Enterprise and the USS Lexington had in fact been at Pearl and recently sent away. Why?

  Kimmel had sent them, separately and on staggered schedules, to deliver Army aircraft to reinforce Midway and Wake islands. Because of the Japanese spy network on Hawaii, great caution was taken to disguise this movement of forces. The Enterprise was scheduled to return by December 5th, at which time the Lexington would leave; Kimmel wanted to make sure that Pearl had coverage from at least one carrier at all times. The Lexington left on schedule, but unfortunately, bad weather struck the Enterprise and kept its group at sea for two extra days, resulting in an unforeseeable 2-day span of no carriers in Pearl Harbor. There was never any mysterious directive from Washington to hide the carriers. Had the weather not intervened, there would have been at least one carrier in Pearl at all times, which was the maximum force available.

  Even so, there’s a powerful reason why the absence of carriers would not support a conspiracy theory. World War II was the first time that aircraft carriers proved themselves to be the most important assets in naval warfare. At the time of Pearl Harbor, we’d not yet learned that, and the battleship was considered the most crucial weapon. That’s why the Pacific Fleet had nine battleships and only three carriers. Conspiracy theorist descriptions of the battleships as old, useless, and expendable are a misstatement of history. They were the best we had, and their perceived value was such that at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, six new battleships of the Iowa class were under construction, and a further six of the Montana class were planned. It wasn’t until the Battle of Midway in 1942 that we learned the value of carriers, and construction shifted to those.

  Was the Ward’
s sinking of the submarine covered up to prevent an alarm? The Ward’s report made it to the desk of the watch officer at 7:15. At 7:30, Kimmel and Rear Admiral Claude Bloch both received it separately by telephone. By the time the Japanese attacked, 25 minutes later, Kimmel and Bloch were still conversing to determine the significance of the sub incident. Kimmel’s opinion was that this was probably one more in a long line of false reports of submarines they’d been accustomed to receiving. Five minutes before the air strike, Kimmel ordered the destroyer USS Monaghan to go and verify the Ward’s story. The Monaghan never made it. Kimmel’s hunch was only conclusively proven wrong in 2002, when the midget submarine’s wreck was discovered.

  When Opana Point picked up the Japanese attack force on radar, their station was still under construction and was not yet fully operational. It had been staffed but nobody had yet received any training. The serviceman at the scope had, in fact, never used the equipment before at all. Lt. Tyler was a fighter pilot, and this was only his second day at Opana Point, and he had not been trained yet either. When Tyler was informed of the inbound target, he assumed it to be a flight of B-17’s known to be inbound on that same course, which was a pretty common event. Since nobody perceived that anything unusual was happening, Tyler famously said “Don’t worry about it,” and they did in fact all go to breakfast. But once the attack began, they ran on foot back to the radar station and helped as best they could. A 1942 court of inquiry cleared Tyler of any blame, and he went on to have an exceptional career in the Air Force.