How to judge Japan's attack without the benefit of hindsight?

[Historiker]

It's much more interesting, if your Name uses the correct gender... [;)]

[Phanatikk]

I'm hardly anti-U.S. I'm from the South!! We are known for being deeply patriotic.

But I AM interested in the truth, whatever that is. The movie Tora Tora Tora is a great movie, but it's hardly accurate history. It's like learning about the Bible from the movie Ten Commandments, which seems to be the way a lot of people in the U.S. learn about "history."

I see a lot of comments and emotes poo-poohing this, but no actual refutation. I rest my case.

[sprior]

Actually there is a point by point rebuttal above.

All life on earth is descended from an alien who lives in a volcano. Prove me wrong.

[Phanatikk]

Funny you should mention that.

Many scientists these days feel that life arrived here on earth from an impact, such as a comet or asteroid. I will admit the possiblity there is a fragment in a volcano somewhere.

Have a nice day.

[Historiker]

You can say anything you want, if you can verify it and aren't just saying "there are some documents" "Roosevelt was.."
Give proof for what you say - and then treat the data you've collected scientifically. You are doing neither.

[sprior]

Do we really need another point by point rebuttal?

[Phanatikk]

This is hardly the place for a dissertation on FDR and the Pearl Harbor attack.

I gave some examples (none actually refuted here) that give some people pause that have looked into this matter.

An excellent book on the subject is "Day of Deceit" by Robert Stinnett, who served in the Pacific, I do believe.

If true, it would give a different perspective on "A date which will live in infamy."

Cheers all

[sprior]

Oh, that book. Well if it's in a book it must be true. here's what someone from Amazon said about it:

Stinnett's conclusions rest on four major allegations. First, that Navy Lieutenant Commander McCollum drafted a memorandum dated October 7, 1940 for his boss, Navy Captain Anderson, entitled "Estimate of the Situation in the Pacific and Recommendations for Action by the United States." In it McCollum set forth eight steps which could be interpreted as provocative to Japan. Stinnett asserts that the President read or knew of this memorandum, and immediately adopted and carried out those eight steps "...to provoke Japan through a series of actions into an overt act: the Pearl Harbor attack."

Stinnett's own research proves otherwise. There were no forwarding endorsements on McCollum's October 7, 1940 memorandum. Stinnett found only a response to McCollum from a Captain Dudley Knox, commenting on its contents. Even though Stinnett admits that "no specific record has been found by the author indicating whether he (Captain Anderson, the addressee) or Roosevelt actually ever saw it," Stinnett goes on to claim that "a series of secret presidential routing logs plus collateral intelligence information in Navy files offer conclusive evidence that they (Roosevelt and Captain Anderson) did see it."

However, if one tries to find the "secret presidential routing logs" cited by Stinnett in his lengthy footnote 8, no secret presidential routing logs are even mentioned, let alone cited. When asked about this, Stinnett replied that the logs he had referenced in footnote 8 (apparently by mistake) "are fully described" in footnote 37 on page 314. But this footnote deals with radio intercepts, not McCollum's memorandum.

It is clear after delving into Stinnett's footnotes that there is no "conclusive evidence," in fact no evidence whatsoever, that Roosevelt saw or even knew of McCollum's memorandum. Stinnett has proved just the opposite of his own oft repeated allegation that Roosevelt adopted McCollum's eight point program. Through Stinnett's own exhaustive research, we now know that there is not one scintilla of documentary evidence that President Roosevelt saw, knew of, or adopted McCollum's proposals.

Stinnett's second major allegation is that Roosevelt prevented Admiral Kimmel from conducting a training exercise that would have uncovered the oncoming Japanese Fleet. Stinnett provides no relevant documents to support his allegation. Stinnett does quote Admiral Turner (at the time of Pearl Harbor, Director of Navy Plans in Washington, D.C.), testifying before Congress after the war, as proof that the Navy had been ordered out of the area where Nagumo's task force was headed:

"We were prepared to divert traffic when we believed that war was imminent. We sent
the traffic down via Torres Strait, so that the track of the Japanese task force would be
clear of any traffic."

What is bothersome is that Turner never made this statement. What Stinnett has done is cobble together phrases of Admiral Turner's testimony from different sentences to arrive at the above quoted statement. The reading of Turner's actual testimony leaves a different meaning

But the mort serious flaw facing Stinnett is that Admiral Kimmel himself, for years fighting to restore his dignity and reversing the belief of many that he was negligent in permitting his Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor to be so surprised, never once stated, suggested or hinted in the hundreds of pages of his testimony before various investigative bodies, in his own book, or in any of his speeches, that he was prevented from finding the Japanese task force. In fact, he did not believe that the Japanese were about to attack Pearl.

Kimmel's own testimony totally disproves Stinnett's second allegation:

"In short, all indications of the movements of Japanese military and naval forces which came to
my attention confirmed the information in the dispatch of 27 November - that the Japanese were
on the move against Thailand or the Kra Peninsula in southeast Asia."

"In brief, in the week immediately prior to Pearl Harbor, I had no evidence that the
Japanese carriers were enroute to Oahu."

Conducting and then concluding a standard annual war game north of Hawaii by some ships of the Pacific Fleet some two weeks before December 7th, is hardly evidence, as Stinnett claims, of Kimmel being prevented from discovering the Japanese attack force.

The remaining two major allegations, one being that the Japanese task force actually sent radio messages while on the way to Pearl, the other that many Japanese secret messages about the planned attack on Pearl Harbor were not only intercepted but were deciphered and translated before the attack, have already been discredited by experts in cryptology and radio communications, as well as by noted historians of Pearl Harbor, such as Gordon W. Prange and John Prados.

An analysis of much of the research done by Stinnett and his quotes raise serious questions about the accuracy and relevance of many of his claims. Any serious student of Pearl Harbor needs to look carefully at Stinnett's research before concluding that he has really uncovered any thing new.

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

To lock this wouldn't be nice. Surpressing others opinions shouldn't happen, even if they are considered to be "anti-US" in a US forum.

Torsten, I am not expecting this thread to end up locked due to the topic, but due to the high probability that threads like this degenerate into a personal insult and trolling fest. There's almost a 100% chance. [:D]

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Phanatik

In a previous post you stated that Short had been ordered to place his forces on sabatoge alert. Short ordered it himself. Marshall later stated in testimony before one of the congressional committes that this was his opportunity to set Short straight about priorities (training vs. alert status) and he failed to take it. If you're going to say PH was a conspiracy at least get the facts right.

You also stated that the British and Dutch broke the IJN codes. They didn't and they weren't reading IJN traffic unless we gave it to them.

Show me what the "Vacate Sea" order is and when it was put into effect.

The two cvs sent out of PH were sent on missions to reinforce Wake and Midway w/ additional aircraft that didn't have the transfer range to make it. No one knew what vessels were more useful at the time.

Nog,

- The U.S. was a NEUTRAL country, arming one side of the conflict. - illegal- If not unconstitutional, against U.S. codes or international law. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on t.v., but I know it's illegal.

It was done during WW1, check the sales made to the Entente vs. the Central Powers. Wasn't illegal then, wasn't illegal in 1939-41. Show me a Federal Court decision that states trading w/ a belligerent is unconstitutional. If not unconstitutional what law does it violate?

- There are archival documents referring to other documents, that have been removed from the archives and never replaced. there are archived documents that refer to collected japanese radio traffic documents that would implicate an attack, that actually say that they were removed due to their explosive nature. A lack of access is not a lack of evidence

.

A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence.

- When the japanese merchant fleet is recalled to japan for conversion to troop carriers, and then those troop carriers are reported as moving to positions to attack U.S. possessions, a la the P.I., and Wake, Tarawa, etc, then YES, it's evidence the Japanese are going to attack the U.S.

The ships sighted prior to 12/7 were moving towards Malaya, where they did indeed land. No Japanese ships were sighted moving towards PI, Wake, Tarawa or PH.


-

I don't know if you know anything about radio traffic collection and analysis, but individual radio operators and their equipment can be identified by their "style" and their "sound" which can't be duplicated. The radio operators were NOT left in Japan as a decoy. If japan had operators in Japan pretending to be KB operators, they would not have fooled anyone. KB operators, the callsigns for the ships, and their equipment were tracked crossing the northern pacific. The civilians were particularly bad, as they were chatty. The navy referred to them as "Gunzoku." the signals collection documents are in U.S. archives. Go get a FOIA and find out. The only detail is that the government claims they weren't decoded until after the attack due to the volume. but there is also evidence this isn't true. And yes, japanese sub signals traffic IS important when it's tracked to Hawaiian waters, even if that were all there was.

It was a lack of radio traffic that allowed KB to escape detection and location, not decoy operators in their home base. KB was under strict radio silence, going so far as to lock the transmitter keys. I believe their officer's testimony over another's testimony who was not there. Rochefort informed Kimmel prior to the attack that intel had lost track of KB.

- As I said about Germany declaring on the U.S., Hitler did FDR a favor. I said I believed he was compelled. Then again, I don't intend to parse "attack," which could possibly mean declared war upon. And I really doubt the Japanese signed the pact because they were concerned England or France was going to attack them in the Pacific. Japan's only real enemy in the Pac was the U.S.

Hitler did not have to declare war under the terms of the Tripartite pact. He was only obliged if Japan had been attacked by a power not contemplated under the terms of the pact (i.e. the US).

- Yes, I have read a few historical accounts, thanks. I know about the abortive attack on Formosa. Uh, why wasn't MacArthur cashiered for screwing up so badly? Kimmel/Short at least had the excuse of being completely surprised. And, yes, I know he was liked in the P.I.

He was the only dog in the fight after the initial attacks. It doesn't inspire confidence in the populace for a President/CinC to cashier an entire theatre's command staff after day one, especially when has he was involved in their selection.

- The historical information was included to show FDR's intent and motives.
Some quotes for you:
from Stimson's diary "The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition."
"In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people, it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this, so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors."

Letting the other side get the first shot in is valued for world and public opinion. This isn't unusual. Stimson is not Roosevelt. Nor does Stimson state that firing the first shot means allowing a successful surprise attack on the strongest US military installation in the world.

FDR and some of his staff actually dicussed the morality of the U.S. president allowing an attack on U.S. servicemen, but decided the Big Picture would permit it.

Where/when is the reference from? I would imagine the original context concerned escorting convoys (a task that neutrals had engaged in before). What is the Big Picture?

Look up Morimura's (Yoshikawa) espionage activities at Pearl before the attack, including the Bomb Plot and the All clear messages.

Morimura's activities have nothing to do with Roosevelt. I've heard of the bomb plot messages, what are the all clear messages. What do they have to do w/ Roosevelt?

There is a lot more evidence to implicate FDR to some extent. I provided the info from my original post off the top of my head while reading the thread because someone offhandedly poo-poo'd any possiblility of foreknowledge. At some point, it comes down to the "If it looks like a Duck Theory."
[/quote}

Imo it fits more accurately under the "Throw enough #### at a wall and you end up covering it"' theory.

The local commanders had sufficient information (including a 'war warning', how that was missinetpreted is beyond me) to enable them to put up a more effective resistance than shown. That's why they were canned. It happens in war. Barbarossa, Kasserine, Bulge, Tet, Bar Lev line and many others show that intelligence failures are far from rare and don't depend on a conspiracy for them to occur.

To sum up, if you believe that Roosevelt, the War Department or the Navy Department deliberately withheld useful information from local commanders in order to allow Japan a successful suprise attack upon US installations in order to get us into a war that qualifies you for the 'tin hat' brigade.

[Phanatikk]

Golly gee, if it's from someone on Amazon, it must be true....
On the otherhand, Stinnett could be talking out of his you know what, or maybe not. He's not my cousin, I don't get royalties, and he may or may not be heavy. It's an interesting book. I've never heard/seen a credible refutation of it. Many of the documents have only come to light since some "noted historians" wrote their books. And who is surprised that government officials and/or cryptoanalysts would engage in CYA or defer for security reasons. A lot of it's still highly classified.

For Warspite1: A loss of sovereignty would occur for the Japanese if they allowed the U.S. to determine Japanese policy for a war in China, which the U.S. wasn't involved in and should have no say in. Again, it was simply FDR trying to provoke the Japanese.

For those questioning my motives or patriotism, I served in the navy for 8 years. I was a Cryptologic Technician.
[;)]
Cheers

[anarchyintheuk]

One other point. Please remember that your opinion that certain legislation was unconstitutional does not make it so only a federal court decision does. Lend Lease was never declared by a federal court to be unconstitutional.

[Phanatikk]

A federal court presided over by a Federal Judge, appointed by... FDR?

Again, I'm not a lawyer but, I did learn that Lend Lease was illegal. Local/State/Federal/International? Who cares now? And I'm referring to war material, not biscuits.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Phanatik

Nog,

- The U.S. was a NEUTRAL country, arming one side of the conflict. - illegal- If not unconstitutional, against U.S. codes or international law. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on t.v., but I know it's illegal.

This statement is categorically wrong.

Neurals may sell, or not sell, munitions to anyone they please. Specifically, the US has, from its founding, when a neutral, sold munitions to nations with the ability to come and pick them up. This case was higly apparent in WWI, when the Austo-Hungarian empire protested our policy of supplying England and France. The official reply from the Secretary of State (here http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usm ... ansing.htm) details occasions (the Boer War in particular) when the A-H empire itself traded with belligerents when a neutral. It laments that the A-H empire fails to possess sufficient naval forces to venture across the Atlantic in the face of overwhelming Royal Navy patrols (The "War is a B***h" premise), but states that's not the USA's problem. If A-H ships could have made NYC, the USA would have allowed private arms manufacturers to load them up.

The logic of this position is in this quote by the Secretary: "But in addition to the question of principle there is a practical and substantial reason why the Government of the United States has from the foundation of the republic advocated and practiced unrestricted trade in arms and military supplies. It has never been the policy of this country to maintain in times of peace a large military establishment or stores of arms and ammunition sufficient to repel invasion by a well equipped and powerful enemy. It has desired to remain at peace with all nations and to avoid any appearance of menacing such peace by the threat of its armies and navies.

In consequence of this standing policy, the United States would, in the event of an attack by a foreign Power, be at the outset of the war seriously, if not fatally, embarrassed by the lack of arms and ammunition and by the means to produce them in sufficient quantities to supply the requirements of national defence. The United States has always depended upon the right and power to purchase arms and ammunition from neutral nations in case of foreign attack. This right, which it claims for itself, it cannot deny to others."

Your contnetion that the supplying of belligerents while a neutral was illegal is false. To state it was unconstitutional is laughable. I'm not a lawyer either, but I can google. Give it a try.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Phanatik

Again, I'm not a lawyer but, I did learn that Lend Lease was illegal. Local/State/Federal/International? Who cares now? And I'm referring to war material, not biscuits.

You stated that Lend Lease was unconstitutional. Are you backing off that?

Perhaps you are mis-remembering a small, of-interest-only-to-constitutional-scholars kerfluffle wherein FDR himself, in perhaps the only time in US history where the flow went down rather than up the chain, declared to the the Attorney General that a VERY small provision of the LL Act inserted by Congress interfered with his executive authority, and thus was an unconstitutional intrusion on executive branch powers by the legislative branch of the federal governemnt.

Many citizens are under the mistaken impression that only the Supreme Court may declare something unconstitutional. In fact, all three branches have a duty to do so when they believe it to be the case. However, only the Supreme Court has the final say. But a president who, for example, finds the Congress pass, over his veto, a bill removing him as Commander in Chief would be under no constitutional obligation to execute that law pending final opinion of the Court. In fact, he would violate his oath of office to do so.

The Lend-Lease Act "unconstitutional" flap is highly technical, but if you're interested, an article originally appearing in the Harvard Law Review fully analyzing it is found at:

http://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/s ... l-opinion/

The Lend-Lease Act itself was fine, legaly and constitutionally.

[Charbroiled]

IMO, if FDR did know of the impending PH attack and allowed it to happen to draw the US into the war in Eurpoe, then he was a Genius and what he did was a great thing.  It was a must for the US to become involved in the World Conflict.  If they hadn't , England and Russia might not exist as we know it today.  Also, if WW2 hadn't taken place, we probably would be at the technological level of the 1970's....which means we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

[Phanatikk]

I'm quite willing to defer on legal matters to those more knowledgeable on such, and withdraw my statement.

If someone more knowledgeable with access to all the documentation with no axe to grind presents a more formal refutation that proves that the smoke which started Dec. 7th is only smoke and no fire, I'd be happy with that as well. Until then, I reserve the right to say "hum..."

[Canoerebel]

No, if he permitted it to happen he was evil beyond belief. But he didn't know and hypothetical statements that he did and what-ifs and wild-eyed conspiracy theories do a grave injustice to the memories of honorable people.

Let me put this another way. As a trial lawyer with more than 20 years experience, were I picking a jury for a case in which the facts and the law were decidedly against my client, I would gladly seek and welcome on my jury anybody who touts the "Roosevelt knew" mantra. If I had a great case in which the facts and the law supported my client, I would strike such people as quickly as possible.

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Phanatik

I'm quite willing to defer on legal matters to those more knowledgeable on such, and withdraw my statement.

If someone more knowledgeable with access to all the documentation with no axe to grind presents a more formal refutation that proves that the smoke which started Dec. 7th is only smoke and no fire, I'd be happy with that as well. Until then, I reserve the right to say "hum..."

You can say "hum..." all you like, and you can express "that in your opinion, xxx happened", but you cannot start from smoke and then state "that means there is fire." That is flawed logic.

Opinions are wonderful things, and sharing them on these forums enriches us all, but express them as opinions and not facts if you want them to be accepted. [8D]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Phanatik

I'm quite willing to defer on legal matters to those more knowledgeable on such, and withdraw my statement.

If someone more knowledgeable with access to all the documentation with no axe to grind presents a more formal refutation that proves that the smoke which started Dec. 7th is only smoke and no fire, I'd be happy with that as well. Until then, I reserve the right to say "hum..."

That's quite nice of you! Basically it's equivalent to saying "I'm quite willing to belive the accused is guilty till proven innocent. All you have to do is prove his innoccence to my satisfaction". That's up there with "when did you stop beating your wife?" in the fair question category. [:D]