The Surrender Of The United States To Russia.

[Viacheslav]

And there are many Russian Nazis. Here are some pictures of them. And there are MANY others besides.

I'm not defending Putin and Russia, but your photos are outdated. In Russia, almost all Nazis have been completely suppressed, not because they don’t like Nazis in Russia, but because they can be competitors for power to the current aging regime.

As for the topic of the US surrendering to Russia, this is ridiculous. Russia in its current form can only exist for a maximum of 10 years, then (when Putin becomes too old, like his closest circle, there are also people there who are on average 70 years old), various options are possible, from a small coup in Moscow to a completely civil war.

 

[Viacheslav]

The US has not surrendered to Russia in the traditional sense, but it has been defeated by Russia in Ukraine.

Sounds like a dumb joke. Russia has been fighting Ukraine for four years and has not even reached the borders of the Donetsk region, and it was Russia that started asking for negotiations from the very beginning, because the original plan for a quick victory (a couple of months of war at most) failed.
In this war that Putin decided to start, there are no winners and there will be none, both countries have suffered severe economic and demographic losses (a significant part due to population migration and a drop in the birth rate).

 

[Zavulon]

I'm not defending Putin and Russia, but your photos are outdated. In Russia, almost all Nazis have been completely suppressed, not because they don’t like Nazis in Russia, but because they can be competitors for power to the current aging regime.

As for the topic of the US surrendering to Russia, this is ridiculous. Russia in its current form can only exist for a maximum of 10 years, then (when Putin becomes too old, like his closest circle, there are also people there who are on average 70 years old), various options are possible, from a small coup in Moscow to a completely civil war.

Didn't you read Surkov's article "The lasting state of Putin"? Like there were "Lasting state of Rurik", "Lasting state of Ivan the Terrible", "Lasting state of Peter the Great", "Lasting state of Lenin", its possible that Putinism (as political system) will continue its existence even after Putin's death.

And, who knows, may be new inventions in medicine and computer science will be able to bring some practical equivalent of immortality.

You know, something like in Warhammer 40k setting:




Or like in Russian fairy tales:

 

[Stryder50]

I didn't mean all those fancy sea-battles or Lend-lease (however useful) or carpet bombings of cities. I meant actual joining the war, like large-scale invasion in Europe.

At the beginning of World War II (1939-1941), the United States Army was relatively small and unprepared for a large-scale global conflict.

Size: In 1939, the US Army had about 190,000 active-duty soldiers. By December 1941, when the US entered the war, this number had grown to around 1.6 million.

Equipment: Much of the Army’s equipment was outdated, with some weapons dating back to World War One.

Training: The Army lacked sufficient training facilities and experienced officers to prepare for modern warfare.

Mobilization: The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 allowed for peacetime conscription, which helped grow the Army’s ranks.

Modernization: The Army began modernizing its equipment and tactics, but progress was slow.

Leadership: General George C. Marshall became Army Chief of Staff in 1939 and led efforts to prepare the Army for war.

Doctrine: The Army was still developing its understanding of modern combined arms warfare.

Air Corps: The Army Air Corps (predecessor to the US Air Force) was expanding but still relatively small.

Isolationist sentiment: Public opinion in the US was largely against involvement in another European war, which affected military preparedness.

Rapid expansion: After the Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941, the Army underwent massive expansion and modernization efforts.

Overall, the US Army at the beginning of World War II was not ready for a major conflict but would undergo significant changes and growth throughout the war.
...
The main factor which limited the size of the US Army, apart from the capacity of the American economy to equip such a large force quickly, was shipping.
The shipping estimates showed that no more than 4,170,000 men could be shipped overseas by the end of 1944. In the event the number of divisions shipped abroad did not exceed 88. This fact was an important restraint on Allied strategy.

Thus, although expansion between December 1941 and December 1943 was unprecedented, with the Army growing from 1,657,157 to 5,400,888, a further increase in the number of units was not undertaken. By December 1944, 4,933,682 Americans were serving abroad in 80 divisions; these were supported by a mere three divisions in reserve.

In 1945 the US Army reached a total of 91 divisions, but three of these were broken up for reinforcements. The remaining 88 were maintained at full combat strength despite the fact that by the end of the Ardennes Campaign in January 1945, 47 regiments in 19 divisions had suffered between 100 and 200 per cent battle casualties.
...

US Army at the beginning of WW2 > WW2 Weapons

US Army at the beginning of WW2 > Strength and Organization of the US Army in North America, Great Britain and Mediterranean theatre in 1941-42.

www.ww2-weapons.com

IIRC, the US Army was something like #18 in size compared to others on the planet on Sept.1, 1939. That invasion of Poland started some here thinking there might be a large war and the USA might get dragged into such, again. So plans started to shape for enlarging the USA military. In the course of such, ramping up production was essential and the USA found much of that early production going to Lend-Lease for other nations in the fight against the Axis.

The USA was just starting more focus on build up of our Army a few months before the Pearl Harbor attack, and that give a further incentive to ratchet up the pace.

Point is it took a while before we had the men, weapons, other supplies, and especially the transport ships to get all of that across the world to where you all had started your second world war. A war we were hoping to stay out of when you all started it in Sept. 1939.

 

[Stryder50]

I didn't mean all those fancy sea-battles or Lend-lease (however useful) or carpet bombings of cities. I meant actual joining the war, like large-scale invasion in Europe.

Your knowledge and scope of military strategy, tactics, and logistics seems very limited. If you knew these fundamental topics better, you'd have your answer.

 

[Zavulon]

Your knowledge and scope of military strategy, tactics, and logistics seems very limited. If you knew these fundamental topics better, you'd have your answer.

I don't pretend to understand grand strategy. It's way above my salary. And I didn't say that America did much lesser than Russia to defeat Europe because lack of goodwill or because Americans are basically evil. Definitely not. You did as much as you could, but you just didn't have enough of capabilities - material, moral, intellectual. You didn't have then, and you don't have now.

In the alternative history scenario, in which the USA formally join anticommintern pact in, say, 1939 (with even lesser motivation to direct participation in the actual combat, of course) Russia wins in, say, 1947, got the whole Europe and build nuclear bomb first. And in this alternative world in 1970 the USA are hardly more influencial than Brazil.

 

[Stryder50]

I don't pretend to understand grand strategy. It's way above my salary. And I didn't say that America did much lesser than Russia to defeat Europe because lack of goodwill or because Americans are basically evil. Definitely not. You did as much as you could, but you just didn't have enough of capabilities - material, moral, intellectual. You didn't have then, and you don't have now.

In the alternative history scenario, in which the USA formally join anticommintern pact in, say, 1939 (with even lesser motivation to direct participation in the actual combat, of course) Russia wins in, say, 1947, got the whole Europe and build nuclear bomb first. And in this alternative world in 1970 the USA are hardly more influencial than Brazil.

Having not spent the past century plus causing tens of millions of deaths to spread our ideology, as the Soviets did to spread Marxism/International Socialism=Communism, it would appear that the USA has far more moral and intellectual capability than Russia has shown to date.

There was not enough support for "formally join anticommintern" in the USA during the 1930s to early 1940s. USA population was mostly focused on not getting involved in another Old World~European war. FDR had opposition to starting Lend-Lease, which BTW, provided means for USA rapid production growth leading to us becoming The Arsenal of Democracy (and indirect supporter on Communism's survival).

The USSR didn't have enough knowledge base, skilled individuals, or economic and productive ability to divert to R&D and developing, or producing, a nuclear bomb. Especially while being strained just to fight against Germany, with significant aid from the USA and UK! USA technology and methods, stolen via Russian supporters in West along with USSR spies allowed Russia to shortcut much of the process to make a nuclear weapon, ONCE the war was over and they could focus more resources in that direction.

As it was, Russia wouldn't have been able to deliver such a weapon to bomb the USA if we hadn't inadvertently provided you the technology in form of our B-29 bombers, about 3+ that diverted to Russia from missions bombing Japan, due to damaged issues. While the USSR eventually returned the crews of those aircraft, it didn't allow USA to recover the aircraft. Instead Stalin ordered reverse engineer, copy exactly the bombers and develop means to reproduce them in Russia. Hence your first strategic, long range bomber capable of carry a nuclear bomb, the Tu-4;

Tupolev Tu-4 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Tupolev Tu-4 (Russian: Туполев Ту-4; NATO reporting name: Bull) is a piston-engined Soviet strategic bomber that served the Soviet Air Force from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s. The aircraft was a copy of the American Boeing B-29 Superfortress, having been reverse-engineered from seized aircraft that had made emergency landings in the USSR.

 

[Stryder50]

I didn't mean all those fancy sea-battles or Lend-lease (however useful) or carpet bombings of cities. I meant actual joining the war, like large-scale invasion in Europe.

Those "fancy sea-battles" are part of what kept Japan distracted from joining Germany in attacking Russia on it's Eastern/Pacific border region.
If the USA and UK hadn't been fighting Japan in the Pacific, they would have had more resources to fight Germany.
Also, had the UK and USA not fought Japan, it would have been able to do the above mentioned attacks and seize of land.

 

[Zavulon]

Those "fancy sea-battles" are part of what kept Japan distracted from joining Germany in attacking Russia on it's Eastern/Pacific border region.
If the USA and UK hadn't been fighting Japan in the Pacific, they would have had more resources to fight Germany.
Also, had the UK and USA not fought Japan, it would have been able to do the above mentioned attacks and seize of land.

And it was about resources you could control or lost. If you give Japanese whatever they want without battle - you'll have much less resources.

 

[Zavulon]

Having not spent the past century plus causing tens of millions of deaths to spread our ideology, as the Soviets did to spread Marxism/International Socialism=Communism, it would appear that the USA has far more moral and intellectual capability than Russia has shown to date.

Actually, you caused millions if death to spread your ideologies. And no, as we can see now - Russia has higher moral and intellectual ground.

There was not enough support for "formally join anticommintern" in the USA during the 1930s to early 1940s. USA population was mostly focused on not getting involved in another Old World~European war. FDR had opposition to starting Lend-Lease, which BTW, provided means for USA rapid production growth leading to us becoming The Arsenal of Democracy (and indirect supporter on Communism's survival).

If you don't pick your side by yourself - someone else make it for you (as it happened with Japan in our reality).

The USSR didn't have enough knowledge base, skilled individuals, or economic and productive ability to divert to R&D and developing, or producing, a nuclear bomb.

And the USA didn't have back in 1941. America was forced (by Japan) to be allied with Russia and Comintern, and thats the main reason why America earned all those skills. If America joined anti-comintern pact in 1939 (and start war against England), then, significant part of those scientists would work for Soviet Union.

Especially while being strained just to fight against Germany, with significant aid from the USA and UK! USA technology and methods, stolen via Russian supporters in West along with USSR spies allowed Russia to shortcut much of the process to make a nuclear weapon, ONCE the war was over and they could focus more resources in that direction.

According unclassified documents, there were more than 130 scientists in Manhattan project working directly to Soviet intelligence and greater number of sympatizers. If the USA are part of Axis - many of them were going in Soviet Union.

As it was, Russia wouldn't have been able to deliver such a weapon to bomb the USA if we hadn't inadvertently provided you the technology in form of our B-29 bombers, about 3+ that diverted to Russia from missions bombing Japan, due to damaged issues. While the USSR eventually returned the crews of those aircraft, it didn't allow USA to recover the aircraft. Instead Stalin ordered reverse engineer, copy exactly the bombers and develop means to reproduce them in Russia. Hence your first strategic, long range bomber capable of carry a nuclear bomb, the Tu-4;

Tupolev Tu-4 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Tupolev Tu-4 (Russian: Туполев Ту-4; NATO reporting name: Bull) is a piston-engined Soviet strategic bomber that served the Soviet Air Force from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s. The aircraft was a copy of the American Boeing B-29 Superfortress, having been reverse-engineered from seized aircraft that had made emergency landings in the USSR.

As if, in the alternative reality, Russia wouldn't be able to capture and copy your bombers bombing Chinese commie guerillas, or develop their own planes or missiles.

 

[Highlight]

I didn't mean all those fancy sea-battles or Lend-lease (however useful) or carpet bombings of cities. I meant actual joining the war, like large-scale invasion in Europe.

How did my thread about surrendering to Russia get turned around to this crap. And Stryder was wrong about how we became involved in the war. We didn't become involved in it. We started it! I found an interesting thread on the matter. Here it is.

Treason At Pearl Harbor.​

There is also a link in it to this declassified document. It is found in post #265 of that thread. Up 8 paragraphs from the bottom, it says this, Up to the morning of December 7, 1941, everything the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States."

"Up to the morning of December 7, 1941, everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States…." -- Top Secret Report of Army Pearl Harbor Board (October 20, 1944)

But please, don't bring up this subject again. The truth isn't allowed to be known or discussed at this forum. If you want to talk about such things, start your own thread about it. This thread is about how we apparently surrendered to Russia.

 

[Highlight]

I'm not defending Putin and Russia, but your photos are outdated. In Russia, almost all Nazis have been completely suppressed, not because they don’t like Nazis in Russia, but because they can be competitors for power to the current aging regime.

As for the topic of the US surrendering to Russia, this is ridiculous. Russia in its current form can only exist for a maximum of 10 years, then (when Putin becomes too old, like his closest circle, there are also people there who are on average 70 years old), various options are possible, from a small coup in Moscow to a completely civil war.

"Outdated" or not, the fact remains that there are many Nazis in Russia. Which is surprising given Russia's history with them. Also, about a year ago on the they showed a captured Russian soldier in the Ukraine. He had a swastika tattooed on his arm. So as of that point in time it doesn't show that Nazis were being suppressed in Russia.

You also say that the idea of the U.S. surrendering to Russia is ridiculous. Haven't you read any of my thread? Everything bad that Putin would like to see happen to the U.S., Trump is making a reality. You also might do well to look up my thread, "Is Trump A Russian Agent?"

 

[Stryder50]

How did my thread about surrendering to Russia get turned around to this crap. And Stryder was wrong about how we became involved in the war. We didn't become involved in it. We started it! I found an interesting thread on the matter. Here it is.

Treason At Pearl Harbor.​

There is also a link in it to this declassified document. It is found in post #265 of that thread. Up 8 paragraphs from the bottom, it says this, Up to the morning of December 7, 1941, everything the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States."

"Up to the morning of December 7, 1941, everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States…." -- Top Secret Report of Army Pearl Harbor Board (October 20, 1944)

But please, don't bring up this subject again. The truth isn't allowed to be known or discussed at this forum. If you want to talk about such things, start your own thread about it. This thread is about how we apparently surrendered to Russia.

You need to read the paragraphs before and after the "8th";
...
"There, therefore, can be no question that between the dates of December
4 and December 6 the imminence of war on the following Saturday and
Sunday, December 6 and 7 was [16] clear-cut and definite. (P. 15)"

The evidence does not seem to justify any such conclusion. There was not
received between the dates of 4 December and 6 December any information
which indicated that war would take place on Saturday or Sunday, 6 and 7
December. It is true that on the night of 6 December the War Department
received the intercepted text of thirteen parts of the fourteen-part
reply of the Japanese Government to the proposal of the United States,
but this at most suggested a possible breach of diplomatic relations at
some time in the near future, which may or may not have been followed by
war. The only other information that was received between 4 and 6
December of significance, in addition to what had already been
transmitted to General Short, was information received on 4 December
that certain Japanese diplomatic and consular posts had been instructed
to destroy certain codes. As I have heretofore pointed out, this
information was fully available to General Short from his own sources in
Hawaii. The intercept which indicated that the Japanese reply was to be
delivered at 1:00 p. m., Washington Time on 7 December was, as
heretofore pointed out, not received until the morning of 7 December and
it itself was not a "clear-cut and definite" indication that war would
occur at that time. The Board further found:

"Up to the morning of December 7, 1941, everything that the Japanese
were planning to do was known to the United States except the final
message instructing the Japanese Embassy to present the 14th part
together with the preceding 13 parts of the long message at one o'clock
on December 7, or the very hour and minute when bombs were falling on
Pearl Harbor. (P. 18)"

This statement is ambiguous but if it implies that it was known that the
Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, this is
not the fact. There is no justification in the evidence for such a
statement.

 

[Stryder50]

How did my thread about surrendering to Russia get turned around to this crap. And Stryder was wrong about how we became involved in the war. We didn't become involved in it. We started it! I found an interesting thread on the matter. Here it is.

Treason At Pearl Harbor.​

There is also a link in it to this declassified document. It is found in post #265 of that thread. Up 8 paragraphs from the bottom, it says this, Up to the morning of December 7, 1941, everything the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States."

"Up to the morning of December 7, 1941, everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States…." -- Top Secret Report of Army Pearl Harbor Board (October 20, 1944)

But please, don't bring up this subject again. The truth isn't allowed to be known or discussed at this forum. If you want to talk about such things, start your own thread about it. This thread is about how we apparently surrendered to Russia.

The USA had nothing to do with making Germany invade Poland on Sept. 1, 1939.
We gradually became involved as a supplier of weapons, food and other items via Lend-Lease during the next two years leading up to Dec. 7,1941. During that time two USN destroyers had been attacked by German U-boats, one sunk, the other damaged and both with loss of lives and injuries. This could have been reason enough for the USA to declare war but we didn't. We also had a semi-active role via formation of the American Volunteer Group (Flying Tigers) sent to China to help them fight the Japanese.

USA sanctions against the Japanese were intended to encourage Japan to stop it's aggression on China. They were not meant to "provoke" Japan into attacking the USA.

I find it amussing, to put mildly, that Leftist wingnuts will say that USA sanctions provoked Japan to attack us, then out of the other side of their mouths they encourage sanctions against Russia to make it end it's war on Ukraine. As if such couldn't backfire and result in repeat of what Japan did, was "provoked" to do. Among the many aspects of mental illness common to Leftist ideology, the concept of "provoke" is a clear contradiction in it's meaning, and applications.

 

[Zavulon]

"Outdated" or not, the fact remains that there are many Nazis in Russia.

Yes. And, oversimplificating, those Nazies are Ukrainians. As there is no "smart (and wide-thinking) Ukrainians", for smart Ukrainian became Russian, same way, there is no "Nazi Russians", for Nazi Russians became "Ukrainians". The difference between Russians and Ukrainians is quite elusive, and its more political rather than ethnic. Read our dear friend Litwin , (who post here tons of Nazi propaganda), or watch some of Russian official or not official propaganda:

Which is surprising given Russia's history with them. Also, about a year ago on the they showed a captured Russian soldier in the Ukraine. He had a swastika tattooed on his arm. So as of that point in time it doesn't show that Nazis were being suppressed in Russia.

It mostly depends on definitions.

You also say that the idea of the U.S. surrendering to Russia is ridiculous. Haven't you read any of my thread? Everything bad that Putin would like to see happen to the U.S., Trump is making a reality.

Putin doesn't want to do anything bad for to the USA. He wants to do something good for Russia. Given the current anti-Russian US policy this difference is rather rhetoric, but it potentially gives us the common ground for understanding and mutual profit in future.

 

[Zavulon]

You need to read the paragraphs before and after the "8th";
...
"There, therefore, can be no question that between the dates of December
4 and December 6 the imminence of war on the following Saturday and
Sunday, December 6 and 7 was [16] clear-cut and definite. (P. 15)"

The evidence does not seem to justify any such conclusion. There was not
received between the dates of 4 December and 6 December any information
which indicated that war would take place on Saturday or Sunday, 6 and 7
December. It is true that on the night of 6 December the War Department
received the intercepted text of thirteen parts of the fourteen-part
reply of the Japanese Government to the proposal of the United States,
but this at most suggested a possible breach of diplomatic relations at
some time in the near future, which may or may not have been followed by
war. The only other information that was received between 4 and 6
December of significance, in addition to what had already been
transmitted to General Short, was information received on 4 December
that certain Japanese diplomatic and consular posts had been instructed
to destroy certain codes. As I have heretofore pointed out, this
information was fully available to General Short from his own sources in
Hawaii. The intercept which indicated that the Japanese reply was to be
delivered at 1:00 p. m., Washington Time on 7 December was, as
heretofore pointed out, not received until the morning of 7 December and
it itself was not a "clear-cut and definite" indication that war would
occur at that time. The Board further found:

"Up to the morning of December 7, 1941, everything that the Japanese
were planning to do was known to the United States except the final
message instructing the Japanese Embassy to present the 14th part
together with the preceding 13 parts of the long message at one o'clock
on December 7, or the very hour and minute when bombs were falling on
Pearl Harbor. (P. 18)"

This statement is ambiguous but if it implies that it was known that the
Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, this is
not the fact. There is no justification in the evidence for such a
statement.

And what was written in open American military books?

-----
W.D. Puleston, The Armed Forces of the Pacific, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1941, pp 116-117

The greatest danger from Japan, a surprise attack on the unguarded Pacific Fleet, lying at anchor in San Pedro Harbor, under peacetime conditions, has already been averted. The Pacific Fleet is at one of the strongest bases in the world - Pearl Harbor - practically on a war footing and under a war regime. There will be no American Port Arthur.
-------------
American government knew about possibility of the war with Japan. American think-tankers and strategists knew about the way the war could began. But, it seems to me, the intelligence totally ignored such possibility, likely, blinded with wishful thinking and underestimation of adversary.
(As well as now they almost totally ignore the possibility of the Russian first counter-force srike at American nuclear forces)

But was (is) it incompetence, treason or a sophisticated plan - it's still a matter of discussion.

 

[Zavulon]

The USA had nothing to do with making Germany invade Poland on Sept. 1, 1939.
We gradually became involved as a supplier of weapons, food and other items via Lend-Lease during the next two years leading up to Dec. 7,1941. During that time two USN destroyers had been attacked by German U-boats, one sunk, the other damaged and both with loss of lives and injuries. This could have been reason enough for the USA to declare war but we didn't. We also had a semi-active role via formation of the American Volunteer Group (Flying Tigers) sent to China to help them fight the Japanese.

USA sanctions against the Japanese were intended to encourage Japan to stop it's aggression on China. They were not meant to "provoke" Japan into attacking the USA.

Both Germany and Japan (as well as Russia now) saw it as "proxy wars" and had the choice - escalate or deescalate. If US government didn't understand how exactly the Germans and Japanese might react - it is their incompetence. If they understood, but, against the will of American people, dragged America in those wars - it was a treason.

I find it amussing, to put mildly, that Leftist wingnuts will say that USA sanctions provoked Japan to attack us, then out of the other side of their mouths they encourage sanctions against Russia to make it end it's war on Ukraine. As if such couldn't backfire and result in repeat of what Japan did, was "provoked" to do. Among the many aspects of mental illness common to Leftist ideology, the concept of "provoke" is a clear contradiction in it's meaning, and applications.

If they believe that "more sanctions" can stop Russia - they are simply wrong and incompetent . If they know, that in the case of escalation Russia will attack (and want it for some reason) it is a treason.

 

[Stryder50]

And it was about resources you could control or lost. If you give Japanese whatever they want without battle - you'll have much less resources.

As usual your vague generalities fail at precise concept.
With or without "battle", the USA had and/or found resources elsewhere to replace what the Japanese took. Enough to produce nearly as much as all other belligerents combined.
The Japanese had an increasingly hard time getting those resources to the Home Islands as USA submarines sank increasing merchant tonnage during the war.

 

[Stryder50]

Actually, you caused millions if death to spread your ideologies. And no, as we can see now - Russia has higher moral and intellectual ground.


If you don't pick your side by yourself - someone else make it for you (as it happened with Japan in our reality).



And the USA didn't have back in 1941. America was forced (by Japan) to be allied with Russia and Comintern, and thats the main reason why America earned all those skills. If America joined anti-comintern pact in 1939 (and start war against England), then, significant part of those scientists would work for Soviet Union.



According unclassified documents, there were more than 130 scientists in Manhattan project working directly to Soviet intelligence and greater number of sympatizers. If the USA are part of Axis - many of them were going in Soviet Union.


As if, in the alternative reality, Russia wouldn't be able to capture and copy your bombers bombing Chinese commie guerillas, or develop their own planes or missiles.

Your delusions continue to run rampant.
And your claims are undocumented, you don't cite sources to back such up. Therefore leave the strong impression you fabricate.

USSR/Russia had neither inclination nor resources to make an atomic bomb while still fighting back the German invasion. Only post war did they learn that the atom bomb was real and did work, and then could make use of the limited information it got from it's agents during the war. Still, the majority of knowledge was stolen and likely would never have been discovered by the Soviets until decades later otherwise.

Russia no clue as to what higher moral and intellectual ground is. Also is far from having such.

Our bombers never did, or could bomb "Chinese commie guerillas"*. Or had any reason to do so during the course of the war. So little chance Russia would "capture" our "bombers". As it turned out, the few that had to make emergency landing in Soviet territory were never returned and were copied, give the Soviets a huge leap forward in modern technology.
* Mao had more regular army units than guerillas.

Until Russia captured the German scientists and some of the factories and actual V-1 and V-2 missiles, Russia was largely clueless on missile development.
Russian Long Range Bomber type, Start of WWII

Best version LRB of home design;

Petlyakov Pe-8 - Wikipedia​

Then impounded USAAF B-29s allowed the Soviets to acquire more modern technology, including pressurization crew compartments;

Soviet Tu-4 copy of USAAF B-29

 

[Stryder50]

And what was written in open American military books?

-----
W.D. Puleston, The Armed Forces of the Pacific, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1941, pp 116-117

The greatest danger from Japan, a surprise attack on the unguarded Pacific Fleet, lying at anchor in San Pedro Harbor, under peacetime conditions, has already been averted. The Pacific Fleet is at one of the strongest bases in the world - Pearl Harbor - practically on a war footing and under a war regime. There will be no American Port Arthur.
-------------
American government knew about possibility of the war with Japan. American think-tankers and strategists knew about the way the war could began. But, it seems to me, the intelligence totally ignored such possibility, likely, blinded with wishful thinking and underestimation of adversary.
(As well as now they almost totally ignore the possibility of the Russian first counter-force srike at American nuclear forces)

But was (is) it incompetence, treason or a sophisticated plan - it's still a matter of discussion.

History, especially military history is filled with countless examples of leaders having been given intelligence of an enemies impending attack, yet failed to believe such and/or act upon it. Often this is because of many other intel reports coming in with similar warning and similar question of reliability. Which of the many are correct? Historical hindsight is also more accurate long after the event.

A classic example, of a nature similar to the Pearl Harbor* attack, and likely of larger damage and shock, is the opening of Barbarossa.

Reported Stalin had been given supposedly accurate intel reports a couple months in advance that Germany was going to attack. Yet Stalin was skeptical of those reports and the implication he couldn't trust Hitler/Germany. Hence rather than pull back the Western Border defenses into a more defensible posture/positions they remained right on edge of border with minimum alert status.

Germany's attack was ever bit as much as a sudden surprise as the one at Pearl Harbor and with more destruction. Dozens of Soviet division were destroyed or captured and about 80-90% of the air force in that region were destroyed on the ground at their air fields.

"incompetence, treason or a sophisticated plan" ???

* Often overlooked is that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was one of several other attacks at the same time through out the Pacific at other bases and military locations. Most all of these also had a surprise and shock value and impact of their own upon those targeted.