Has anyone read,"At Dawn We Slept"?

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Tomcat

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Your example is flawed.  In the cases of Arnold, Watergate, and the efforts to assassinate Hitler, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that Arnold had gone over to the British, the Watergate break-in occurred, and some Germans wanted to do away with Hitler.

In the case of Pearl Harbor, all the credible evidence proves that neither Roosevelt nor any other American had foreknowledge of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  Anybody who suggest otherwise is the person who says Benedict Arnold was an alien, Watergate didn't happen, and that Hitler was actually killed in 1943 and the war was carried on by a zany group of Italians who had infiltrated the German high command.

You've just done an excellent job of illustrating my prior point. "If I believe it then it must be historical fact and reasonable people agree, but if I don't believe it then it must be a conspiracy that only crazies believe". Thanks!

Credible evidence is more that just a "belief". If you believe something in spite of an "overwhelming weight of evidence" such as BA never turning traitor and Watergate never happening then . . . yes, you are starting on the road to the aluminum foil brigade.

Not an expert, but from all I've read about PH there's no evidence to conclude anything other we got caught with our pants down due to a lack of imagination, underestimation of our opponent and a failure to prepare the major fleet base of the USN for any potential threats. Just my $.02.

[Tomcat]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

ORIGINAL: Tomcat

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Your example is flawed.  In the cases of Arnold, Watergate, and the efforts to assassinate Hitler, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that Arnold had gone over to the British, the Watergate break-in occurred, and some Germans wanted to do away with Hitler.

In the case of Pearl Harbor, all the credible evidence proves that neither Roosevelt nor any other American had foreknowledge of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  Anybody who suggest otherwise is the person who says Benedict Arnold was an alien, Watergate didn't happen, and that Hitler was actually killed in 1943 and the war was carried on by a zany group of Italians who had infiltrated the German high command.

You've just done an excellent job of illustrating my prior point. "If I believe it then it must be historical fact and reasonable people agree, but if I don't believe it then it must be a conspiracy that only crazies believe". Thanks!

Credible evidence is more that just a "belief". If you believe something in spite of an "overwhelming weight of evidence" such as BA never turning traitor and Watergate never happening then . . . yes, you are starting on the road to the aluminum foil brigade.

Not an expert, but from all I've read about PH there's no evidence to conclude anything other we got caught with our pants down due to a lack of imagination, underestimation of our opponent and a failure to prepare the major fleet base of the USN for any potential threats. Just my $.02.

I would add to your list another point made by the author of A Man Called Intrepid, but first some background: On p. 256 (paperback edition) he says: "TRICYCLE, one of the double agents supposedly under British control, arrived in Stephenson's New York office fresh from talking with his German spy masters about Pearl Harbor six months before the Japanese struck there. Hoover refused to believe his extraordinary story. When Commander Montagu later spoke of the 'ghastly period' when the FBI became obstructive, he was still sick with dismay over TRICYCLE's inability to get through to Hoover the significance of his Pearl Harbor reports." The author goes on for a few pages about TRICYCLE (caps his) and what was going on between Roosevelt and Churchill at the time, and concludes on p. 263 "And so TRICYCLE's preview of Pearl Harbor passed into oblivion. Churchill had been too successful in distracting the President's attention from the East and focusing it instead upon Britian's own immediate worries". Another author, Schom, argues that it was about this same time that Kelly Turner unsuccessfully attempted to convince his superiors of the Japanese intent to attack Pearl Harbor, but I don't recall where Schom thinks Turner got the information.

Now to the point made by Stevenson (author of A Man Called Intrepid): from p.256

"The incident (with TRICYCLE) is significant for another reason. It offers an important lesson to those who would revise history long after the event. At any given time, the intelligence signals foreshadowing a move by the enemy are part of a general uproar of information, some true, but much of it possibly false, including deception material deliberately planted by the enemy or (even more effectively) by the enemy's secret friends. In hindsight, it may seem that true warnings should have stood out like beacons. A distant observer, looking back, is unaware of all the other distractions, some of them contradictory, that at the time seemed equally important. The lesson applies as much to the varied evaluations of ULTRA as it does to the particular case of Pearl Harbor."

[ChezDaJez]

A few points to consider when attempting to determine what the US knew of Japanese plans for war.

Japan's fighting in Manchuria and China prior to PH had not overly impressed many military analysts. The consensus was that the Japanese Army was a second rate force incapable of securing victory in China.

No one believed that the Japanese Navy had the naval assets nor the skill to attack a distant outpost such as PH. The prevailing view of the Japanese Navy and Air Force can be found here... Why Japan is not an airpower

While this article is not an intelligence estimate, it does a good job of reinforcing the view that Japanese were only capable of copying western equipment.

Also consider that the Japanese did not begin planning their attack in ernest until late summer of 41 when it became obvious that the Zuikaku and Shokaku would be available for the mission. The navy had determiend that a minimum of 6 carriers would be required along with a logistics train. Unfortunately, the aircrews for these two carriers had little time to develop the teamwork necessary so were assigned to airfield attack and CAP duties.

The IJA also demanded that navy carriers be provided for supporting their Malaya operations. This demand nearly derailed the PH attack but Yamato refused to budge. The army finally agreed to just the 2 CVLs for support of the PI invasion.

Development of a "shallow" water torpedo began in the spring of 1941 but it was several months before a workable solution was obtained. Aircrew training for shallow water attacks did not begin until October 41.

So to say that plans for a PH attack were well known to intelligence types prior to late summer of 41 is to really stretch reality. Even the Japanese weren't sure that such an attack was logistically possible until then. It's easy to say after that fact that various foreign spies and US intelligence types knew it all along but no one would listen. That's nothing more than trying to wipe their butts before pulling their pants back up after being caught with them down.

Chez

[Nikademus]

Because the Japanese air force has devastated helpless Chinese cities does not mean it is a potent aerial armada. Here are some cold facts.

lol...where have we heard that expression before....the more things change, the more they stay the same...even in the digital age. [:D]


On topic.....I think that PH itself tends to blind audience members to the greater (and more plausible) theory on whether or not Roos and company allowed an attack in general to take place. Personally i doubt that they intentionally let "Pearl Harbor" happen but it is true that Roos wanted the US in the war and he knew the best way for that to happen would be if the other guy attacked us first. Most likely it was expected that such a thing would take place closer to enemy territory. The answer will probably never be known.

[Canoerebel]

[8|] The answer is known - at least if you accept the idea that a question can be decided by searching for evidence, weighing the evidence, sifting to remove the non-credible evidence, and then analyzing the credible evidence.

It's done all the time. Juries do it. Historians do it.

All credible evidence "proves" (as much as anything of this sort can be proven) that neither Roosevelt nor any other American had foreknowledge that the Japs were going to hit Pearl Harbor. The only "evidence" to the contrary is implausible conspiracy rambling, complete speculation, or uninformed comments blown out of proportion.

Make no mistake - Americans did know that war was imminent; but they expected hostilities to erupt in the Philippines or vicinity or possibly even Russia. Due to misjudgments, conflicting reports, bad analysis, and a host of other "innocent but nevertheless grave human error" nobody really expected the Japs to hit Pearl Harbor.

For anybody to say "We'll probably never know" or "Maybe..." indicates that either they haven't looked at the question or they reject credible evidence and accept incredible evidence. Suggesting that Roosevelt or any highly-placed American knew of the attack beforehand does an immense injustice to them.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

[8|] The answer is known - at least if you accept the idea that a question can be decided by searching for evidence, weighing the evidence, sifting to remove the non-credible evidence, and then analyzing the credible evidence.

It's done all the time. Juries do it. Historians do it.

Which doesn't always make them right. Unless you have personally talked to Roosevelt yourself, you cannot say with 100% certainly what he knew or what his ultimate agenda was.

Suggesting that Roosevelt or any highly-placed American knew of the attack beforehand does an immense injustice to them.

If you'll read what i wrote a tad more carefully, you'll see that I made no such suggestion in regards to Pearl Harbor.

[Marty A]

It is said that england knew of german attack on russia. it is said that russia knew of japanese attack on ally proof is siberian troops in moscow in november 1941. if russia knew why not ally? maybe england know this also and say nothing? maybe us know? is there evidence beyond reasonable doubt to say no they did not know? if i was jury i would say no there is not. is there reasonable doubt to say they did know? if i was jury i would say no there is not on this also. to say your think is only possible correct is not correct.

[Tomcat]

ORIGINAL: Marty A

It is said that england knew of german attack on russia. it is said that russia knew of japanese attack on ally proof is siberian troops in moscow in november 1941. if russia knew why not ally? maybe england know this also and say nothing? maybe us know? is there evidence beyond reasonable doubt to say no they did not know? if i was jury i would say no there is not. is there reasonable doubt to say they did know? if i was jury i would say no there is not on this also. to say your think is only possible correct is not correct.

Marty, as you indicated, it seems that there is documentation to indicate that in fact England did warn Russia shortly before Germany attacked, but Stalin decided the information was "not credible". There are German reports that as German troops rolled into Russia they passed Russian trains carrying raw materials on their way to the Germans. Which evidence is "credible" and which evidence is "not credible" seems to be a bit subjective and subject to error.

[Marty A]

Maybe misunderstand me. i not say fdr knew. but i am not say he did not know. i say that for 1 person to say that everyone that does not think same about this subject being wrong are to them wrong. closed mind is sign of empty mind. we never knew what anyone really knew if we not know by now. and no way to prove either way. debate on it fun and sometimes interesting. to say this is it end of discussion is silly.

[Tomcat]

Marty,
I'm agreeing with you and trying to add support. Stalin was given correct information which he decided was not credible, even though it was true. Much of the argumentation on this thread assumes that "reasonable people" infallibly interpret which evidence is credible and which isn't, so any other interpretation must be unreasonable. The facts demonstrate otherwise.

[dorjun driver]

Hey rhohltjr!

Pearl Harbor Conspiracy? No.
Attempt to get us into WW2 via a sailboat sacrifice? Perhaps.
Is that a conspiracy?

I hope you're not dissing the Lanikai.[:-]

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


On topic.....I think that PH itself tends to blind audience members to the greater (and more plausible) theory on whether or not Roos and company allowed an attack in general to take place. Personally i doubt that they intentionally let "Pearl Harbor" happen but it is true that Roos wanted the US in the war and he knew the best way for that to happen would be if the other guy attacked us first. Most likely it was expected that such a thing would take place closer to enemy territory. The answer will probably never be known.

Allowed an attack Nik? I think that is a bit unfair. How could he have stopped it without giving a regime with a terrible record all its strategic goals? Churchill wanted the US in the War. Roos, or President Roosevelt as I prefer to refer to the man, may indeed have felt war was inevitable, and in such a case, did everything he could to ensure the Japanese were clearly responsible for striking the first blow. That is not the same thing as wanting war. It is a pragmatic view of a head of state for a democracy that did not want war.

MacArthur is easy to understand. He viewed himself both as an American General Officer and a Governor-General of the Philippines. He delayed an order to conduct offensive operations from the Philippines while he wrestled with his hope that the Japanese might leave the Philippines alone against the logic that they wouldn't. He shut himself away while had this internal debate. Not a great time to be indecisive, but fully understandable when viewed from his foxhole. That decision (or lack of) and his failure to defend the Philippines with his ground and naval forces haunted him and shaped his life,and the lives of many others, for the next three years.

[Jonathan Pollard]

At least one person in the Office of Naval Intelligence promoted the idea of goading Japan into war: his memo states "It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado [...] If by [the elucidated 8-point plan] Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better." President Roosevelt, over the course of 1941, implemented all 8 of the recommendations contained in the McCollum memo. Following the eighth provocation, Japan attacked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo

A BBC documentary exposes the foreknowlege Roosevelt must have had about the attack, and the intentional failure to pass on to Kimmel and Short this foreknowledge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_OFBr295eg

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard
Following the eighth provocation, Japan attacked.

RIGHT! Terribly "provocative" to tell a foreign government that if they don't stop behaving like bullies and bandits we aren't going to sell them the means to continue conquering and persecuting their neighbors! How dare we refuse to continue being silent partners in Japan's atrocities!

This is all "after the fact" baloney. Like noting that the ancients built pyramids in both Mexico and Egypt, and then saying that it proves the existence of Atlantis or "ancient astronauts" or some other pet nonsense. All it "proves" is the indisputable fact that if you want to build a large monument and all you have to work with is stone, then your options on how to stack it without having it fall down on you are extremely limited.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


Allowed an attack Nik? I think that is a bit unfair. How could he have stopped it without giving a regime with a terrible record all its strategic goals? Churchill wanted the US in the War. Roos, or President Roosevelt as I prefer to refer to the man, may indeed have felt war was inevitable, and in such a case, did everything he could to ensure the Japanese were clearly responsible for striking the first blow. That is not the same thing as wanting war. It is a pragmatic view of a head of state for a democracy that did not want war.

Unfair? perhaps. Keep in mind, I am not criticising Roosevelt. I've always been kind of a fan of his in fact, even though some recent things i've read about him have not been so rosy. (not apsects that involve this thread topic). There are indeed differing viewpoints on what exactly Roosevelt wanted.....that he did not want war but helped precipitate it with ham-handed foreign policy items that goaded Japan into making her decision to attack us, which dovetails into the school of thought that many felt that Japan wouldn't dare attack us so blatantly etc etc. Another school of thought though suggests that he may indeed have wanted war because he saw that in the bigger picture, the United States could not survive as a sole Island of Democracy in a sea of totalitarianism. His undeclared shooting war in the Atlantic may be seen as one aspect of this. After reading Caputo, it seems amazing (in hindsight of course) that Roosevelt or anyone in the know would actually expect Japan to back down, more so when one reads of Japan's mostly unknown attempts to compromise. Calculated or miscalculated? Don't know. I know the befuddled image of Roos presented in the movie that shall not be named does not tie in with the crafty politician i've come to know a little better.

I understand this tends to excite people because some use this line of thought to try to call Roosevelt a war monger. I'm not doing that because I feel that yes, the US needed to be in the war on the side of the Allies.....and not simply for the white hat type save the world argument but simple pragmatic survival and preservation of our own self interests. (of which every country looks after) A Warmonger is one who starts fights that need not be fought. This was a war that needed to be fought.

Regardless of whether he stumbled or steered us in the direction of involvement in the war.....it was still ultimately the right course of action. Isolationism and shunning world developments would have made for a poorer world for all of us, regardless of one's politics.

[Panther Bait]

The part about the "they knew there was going to be an attack" theory that I can never fathom is why they would have to act like they didn't know for the ploy to be effective, regardless of where they thought the ball was going to drop. 
 
For example, let's suppose that FDR and certain members of the government knew there was going to be an attack at Pearl Harbor and knew all the details, when, how, with what forces, etc.  Is there a reason why you have to leave the base and the ships completely undefended to get us into the war?  I suppose some might say to make sure that they Japanese couldn't cancel it at the last moment, but really, I think that if they told Kimmel and Short to ring up General Quarters at 4 am, there is no way the Japanese would find out in time to scrub, even if they would have.  And by that time, all the other preparations (invasion fleets, air attacks) were prepped and ready, so it's not like they could have/would have called the whole thing off.  Instead, the ships in port would have been better prepared, CAP would have been up, and the Japanese would have taken a lot more losses.  I think the US public would still have been sufficiently pissed off to support the declaration of war anyway, and you'd actually still have a fleet and airforce to do something about it.  What good is having your war without the means to fight it?  To think that FDR, or anyone, would be so callous as to sacrifice that many lives and that much equipment just so the US public would be really, really mad (instead of just really mad) seems incredulous.
 
Or in other words, if I was trying to get someone to start a fist fight with me (without throwing the first punch myself).  I might stick out my chin and dare them to hit me, but I wouldn't close my eyes, too.  I'd let the punch come start to come in, try to dodge, and have a haymaker ready to go.
 
Mike

[anarchyintheuk]

Agreed, no reason to start off a war w/ an arsekicking when the invasion of the Philipines would suffice.

[Mike Scholl]

The stupid folks here were the Japanese.  Given the "peacetime attitudes" of virtually everyone in the US Government and Military, they could have handed in their declaration of war Saturday Night (in time to make all the Sunday Morning editions in the US.) and still been able to achieve suprise in Oahu 12 hours later..., because nobody was ready to believe those "funny little people in the coke bottle glasses would have the nerve to do that!"  

Everybody pretty much "knew" that the Brits in Malaya and the Dutch in the East Indies were "under the gun".  Most of them "thought" if the Japanese went South, the Philippines would probably be attacked as well (in which case Guam was also a given, and Wake a possibility).  But Hawaii was closer to the US than to Japan, and not in Japan's way at all..., so virtually no one was willing to believe it might be a target.   It could easily have been even more unprepared in the "hustle and scramble" to get everything ready to go to sea than it was on a peacetime Sunday Morning.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

The part about the "they knew there was going to be an attack" theory that I can never fathom is why they would have to act like they didn't know for the ploy to be effective, regardless of where they thought the ball was going to drop. 

One explanation would be that they didn't know 'specifically' where/when an attack would take place but that it was likely. Like i said, i don't think Roosevelt knew specifically that PH was going to be attacked, hence I don't buy into the Pearl Harbor betrayed conspiracy theory. I havn't read the book which generates so much angst on Internet boards. I do at least give benefit of the doubt on speculations on matters of Higher policy and the actions and movements of forces that were implemented prior to the suprise attack. Did Roosevelt consider PH as a target when he made the decision to move the Fleet to PH? What was going through his head? etc etc. I know at least one Fleet Admrial IIRC was against the move on strictly military premises.....the Fleet was about as safe and secure as it could be on the West Coast. It is far more likely that an attack, if expected would occur closer to Japan given there 'was' a serious underestimation of the [potential] enemy's military power. I do wonder sometimes. In the end though it may have just come down to mistakes and errors of judgement as Chez alluded too.

[Panther Bait]

I was really using PH as a for instance, although for the US, the only two places we could seriously be attacked were PH and the Philippines. The West Coast was probably out of reach and there wasn't much there with Pac Fleet in PH. Same with Alaska, and the various US Territories, not enough important targets to be worth the effort. So, if the US knew an attack was coming, then you really only had to prepare at two locations.

And to be honest, "sacrificing" the Philippines to get a war with Japan probably makes less sense than PH, since they are the closest forces that can actually do damage quickly and the most exposed. Letting the PI air force get wiped out puts a serious crimp in the pre-War plans, which generally required the PI's as some sort of remote base to work the Fleet from.

Lastly, it could also be argued that the war FDR really wanted was with Germany in the first place. While picking a fight with the Japanese might get you a fight with Germany, but it wasn't the most secure choice in the world. And it could have really backfired as an excuse to get in the war if Hitler had been smart and not declared war on the US so soon. Without Germany's declaration of war on the US, the US public might have resisted getting seriously involved in Europe for quite a while (even though it probably would have happened eventually). '

So, based on what I have read and what makes sense to me, I just can't think that the FDR or anyone else had enough credible evidence to know specifically that attacks were coming on Dec 7. Did they strongly suspect that war with Japan with almost inevitable? Sure. Were they lax with the defenses considering that? Probably, especially being predictable about it (i.e. standing down every Sunday). Unfortunately one of the 20/20 hindsight problems is that it is really difficult to maintain an alert defense everywhere even when you know that violence is imminent. Keeping troops at ready alert for weeks on end with only general feeling that violence is possible is very difficult.

Anyway, just my thoughts. Not saying anyone is a moron for not feeling the same. [:)]