C@d$ Bre@k$rs

[Ol_Dog]

Day of Deceit by Robert B Stinnett lists 129 Japanese naval intercepts from 16 Nov to 4 Dec 1941 to the carriers.

The liner Lurline and 5 US intellienge stations report RDF for 30 Nov, 1 Dec and 2 Dec in North Pacific.

[Ol_Dog]

I had about a page of quotes from the book, but when I tried to post, the forum said I couldn't because of http refer or something.

The last RDF was 3 Dec, 900 miles North of Hawaii

[byron13]

Gee, in retrospect, that almost seems significant, doesn't it?

What's the rest of the story? Who decided that it was really a U.S. fishing fleet on a routine outing from the West Coast to Honolulu and not worth reporting to anyone?

[Ol_Dog]

One example - SS Lurine, left San Francisco, 29 Nov, picked up passengers in Los Angeles, then sailed for Hawaii. Leslie Grogan, radio operator of SS Lurline on midnight to morning watch, noted broadcasts from shore stations in Japan. These were being repeated by ships in the North Pacific. By US Naval orders, there were to be no ships in the Vacant Seas area.

These broadcasts continued through the night of 2 Dec. When the Lurline docked at Pearl on 3 Dec, Grogan took the transcripts and the RDF bearing to Lt Cmdr George Pease of Naval Intelligence. When Lurine arrived back at San Francisco on 10 Dec, it was met by Lt Cmdr Preston Allen who boarded the ship and confiscated the radio log.

In 1970, the Navy said they had no record of the log. But in 1958 the National Archives inventoried the radio log. In 1991, the National Archives said a withdrawl slip, appently from 1970 was in the file - but not signature of whoever removed the material.

[madflava13]

Ol Dog -
I'd never heard that story. The books I have never mentioned it. Although they were written by people in Naval Intelligence at the time, so if your story is true, they may have been biased.
How good is "Day of Deceit"? Do you recommend it?

[Ol_Dog]

The subtitle is The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor.

I believe it give a fair and balanced account of the intelligence effort involving Pearl Harbor. It points out the inconsistencys in testimony and actions by many people. It is easy to understand that everyone knew there was going to be a war and it was near. It makes Kimmel and Short look a lot better. It also points out the things that were not disclosed or not unclassified in hearings in 1945 -1976 - 1995.

I bought the book. It is worth reading - borrow it at the library. You can make up your own mind as to who knew what and when.

[LargeSlowTarget]

From his choice of words and the 'tone' of some sentences, I got the feeling that Stinnett is not particulary fond of Roosevelt, so there might be a bias/agenda involved in his work. But that's a general problem of doing history. I also remember some assertions which were not backed by sources and some conclusions which were not too cogent. Maybe it's only my own bias that I'm somewhat suspicious of revisionist writings, or the translation is just bad. I'll try to get the english version through my library. After all, history is a matter of perception.