Historical Perspective: Intelligence and the 1944 Election [Title Not in Original]

U.S.S. Clueless ^ | 11/5/03 | Den Beste

[LS]

Yah. But it's in our territory. Hostile vessels with hostile intent. That should be warning enough.

[jamaksin]

Tracy White,

So very good of you to join in this discussion ... on "fraud" ... it was not my - repeat - not my usage. Now you might consult the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, or the Statute of Frauds as given in the United States Uniform Commercial Code (i.e., elementary business law) - but you might also begin your check with #16 this thread for the mustard seed there - LS's genesis.

Just curious - have you as yet discovered the significance of the CA NACHI Papers and their provenance? I apologize if this too much of a "blast" for you; see Prados' Combined Fleet Decoded (pages 698-699), N.B., second paragraph of page 699 - "The mother lode of intelligence treasure ..." which might be helpful to you. [Also, please, any pointer that you have of my saying that CA NACHI was part of the Striking Force would be very helpful.]

Larry,

So, why again is the AKAGI message a fraud? And, of course the initial question: Why have none of the source materials used to develop the COMSUM15 of November 30, 1941 been released, even after numerous and very specific FOIA requests?

Very odd, indeed and, of course, curious.

Thank you each in advance.

[LS]

Readers, you see now for the 10th time this fellow refuses to answer a very simple question. Why is that?

Maybe because he knows you won't like his answer very much. Let me answer it for him.

"Question: Do you think the veterans, the codebreakers, teh cryptologists were traitors?"

Answer: "Yes I do. They were in cahoots with FDR, who knew the attack was coming and who got their cooperation to stage a massive coverup."

That's his answer, folks. That's the answer he has dodged, ducked, refused to address. That's why he masks everything around stupid references to the "Akagi" or some other message---because the issue here is he thinks all you vets, especially you cryptographers, KNOWINGLY PARTICIPATED IN A PLOT TO KILL THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS.

Let him deny that this is what he thinks. Let him answer straightforward my question, and the only question of relevance: "Do you think that the codebreakers/cryptographers were traitors?" It's just that simple.

[jamaksin]

Larry,

Hello and a very good morning to you.

If you could, please, and if it is not causing too much trouble, please to square your #32 and now just #43 ... TENTH or 10th ... time. Thank you.

Oh, yes, those AKAGI details would be appreciated.

Further, on whose "oath" and whose "honor" please see, from The Pacific War [circa 1981] by John Costello, Chapter 38 “Pearl Harbor-Warning or Decision?” on page 647, is found:

Safford’s letter to Kramer:

“Be prudent and patient. I am just beginning to get things line [sic] up on this end. No one in Opnav can be trusted. Premature action will only tip off the people who framed Admiral Kimmel and Gen. Short, and will also get Safford and Kramer in very serious trouble. Yet we must have the backing, the rank, and the prestige afforded by Adm. Halsey. Tell Halsey that I knew Adm. Kimmel was a scapegoat from the start, but I did not suspect that he was the victim of a frameup until about 15 December 1943, could not confirm it until 2 December 1943, and did not have absolute proof until about 18 Jan 1944. Capt. Safford has overwhelming proof of the guilt of Opnav and the Gen. Staff, plus a list of fifteen reliable witnesses.”

[Whose "oath" and whose "honor" here?]

And then on page 649 in this same text we find ...:

“What makes this incident more significant is not only that Briggs was ordered not to testify in support of Safford at the hearings, ... but that he annotated the signal log sheet in 1960 ' ... all transmissions intercepted by me between 0560 thru 1300 on the above date are missing from these files ..& ... these intercepts contained the ‘winds message.’”

[Whose "oath" and whose "honor" here?]

But, the AKAGI information, please ... and many thanks in advance for helping keep this discussion so cordial and open for the many who have an interest and/or are curious as to why so many Pearl Harbor related materials remain hidden today ... in November 2003.

[LS]

It's a simple reply, Mr. Duck and Dodge: yes or no, were the cryptographers, in your view, traitors. Please, no more trash about the Akagi. Yes or no. I know what you think, and by now, so does most of the board. You think they are traitors. Why can't you be man enough to say so?

[TastyManatees]

This thread was begun as a historical example of people placing their country before their political ambition and intellectual suspicions. My own thoughts are that as of Dec. 8, 1941, whether Roosevelt had prior knowledge of an attack or not, the fact became irrelevant, because our country had been attacked and politicization of intelligence would harm American national security. Thomas Dewey seems to have been of the same mind, no matter how much evidence of foul play he may have thought he had.

After reading this thread, I think I am starting to understand how Senate Democrats could be so intent on taking actions that harm their fellow Americans and destroy their own party.

Tasty Manatees

[jamaksin]

Larry,

Was that a cardinal or an ordinal "10" - you neglected to clear that up. Please do so.

Oh, yes, you might explain to everyone just who Safford and Kramer were ... and can I argument with them? After all they were there ... really they were.

But, also that AKAGI material is left wanting - please, do address.

Many thanks.

[LS]

Mr. Duck and Dodge, Do you think the cryptologists were traitors? Yes or no?

[Tracy White]

From the Meeriam-Webster online Dictionary:
Fraud
1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK

Apologies for missing that in the exchange above, I'm just returning to these boards after a long hiatus and thought it was from another thread I had missed.

By that definition above, the Japanese Akagi transmissions were fraudulent, but I'd prefer if we used the word deceptive. It's been documented that the Japanese Navy sent out deceptive signals to trick the US and British into thinking that much of their carrier force was still in the home islands. Akagi's regular operators were at Sasebo Naval Base on Kyushu when they sent out traffic "from" Akagi.

I have never understood the relavence of the IJN Nachi papers. She was in a totally separate force. Yes, the Top Secret Op Order #1 recovered from Nachi specified ships broadcast, but the Kido Butai was given separate orders AFTER the release of Op Order #1 that ordered them to proceed with "the utmost secrecy." See Carrier Striking Task Force Operations Order No. 1.

TastyManatees: I did enjoy your original piece; it's a great work. We've all got our agendas however, and you shouldn't be surprised that even great pieces get co-opted ;)

[jamaksin]

TastyManatees,

I thank you very much for your patience here; I'd also like to point to the Wall Street Journal of Friday, November 7, 2003, page A10, the article "Flagrantly Dishonest" - paragraph three - "... The Democratic memo is a hit job, spelling out how to create the maximum embarassment to President Bush during his re-election campaign..." [Not quite the Dewey analogue, but close. Senator Rockefeller and "minority staff director" Christopher Mellon are mentioned.]

Tracy White,

Thank you for that clarification - as you know I never said nor implied that CA NACHI was part of the Striking Force. So good of you to clear that up. Glad also to see that you found those papers - their value to you is clearly your call; but please see below for some of my requested help.

On, deceptive ... as to imply "radio deception" - you know of the Rochefort (and he should know you might agree - perhaps not) several commentaries on that ... namely that it did not happen relating to Pearl Harbor [See, for just one, Layton, And I Was There , last paragraph on page 317 ... " 'How do you know it's AKAGI?' I asked. Joe explained, 'It's the same ham-fisted radio operator who uses his transmitting key as if he is kicking it with his foot.' ..." [Oops, seems said operator is not ... where did you say ... the inland sea?]

And of, course, please, any pointer to the order(s) which superceded that found in the CA NACHI Papers, would very much be appreciated - the full citation, if possible, and especially when using any of the known SRN's. Why? Because it is important to highlight the different between shortwave and longwave - as the Imperial Japanese Navy (i.e., IJN) did in 1941.

So, this gets everyone to the original AKAGI question:

[Start of question]

Why have none of the source materials used to develop the COMSUM14 of November 30, 1941 (a summary statement which can be found in the Joint Congressional Hearings, for example), ever been released, even after a myriad of FOIA requests?

[End of question]

Of interest, of course, are several things - time/date of the intercept(s), the raw intercepts themselves (as in not redacted), the oil tankers called, frequenc(ies) used, signal duration, signal quality, how recorded, ..., RDF bearings, monitoring stations, ..., just how was it determined to be the AKAGI ... etc. ...?

[Finally, do you presume that the communications methods used were strictly operator-centric? You might re-consider that ... so-called "spurt" messages ... simultaneous receive/re-broadcast ...

A point of interest, perhaps, when that list of IJN officers, who swear that no radio transmissions - on any frequency and at any time were made - did they mean solely human-keyed?]

Thank you for you help.

LS,

What Safford said ...

But, that AKAGI information would be helpful.

Thank you very much.

[LS]

Mr. Duck and Dodge,

I don't want "what Safford said." I want you to expose yourself for what you are. Tell us plainly, in YOUR words:

were the codebreakers of 1941-42 traitors? Did they participate in a "cover up?" Yes or no.

All the readers here can see your wiggling to try to avoid saying what we all know you believe. Can't you be man enough to state it? WERE THEY TRAITORS, YES OR NO?

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Due to extreme "busyness" I stopped with Prange's books, and a read of Admiral Laytons book plus John Toland's efforts. There has apparently been numerous publications about Pearl Harbor over the last 10 years. Would someone be kind enough to list the significant publications? (Especially on the issue of the cracking of the Japanese naval codes.)Also, there seems to be a rising question as to Kido Butai maintaining radio silence; anything on that topic would be appreciated. Lastly, the magazine on code breaking. How can one find the articles?

By the way I'm not in the "Roosevelt knew" school. Though, God forbid, one must believe the old fox was capable of devious methods.

[jamaksin]

Larry,

Hello and good morning.

I will point to #44 this thread, what did Safford say ... and who can argue with him, although his stance did hurt his career.

But, also, I will pass on another piece of history here, ... to answer your question, as perhaps what Stimson had in mind ... or maybe that was a cover-up ..."The Shut-Eye Sentry" as taken from the Kipling poem of the same name. Oh, see, Clausen and Lee, Pearl Harbor: Final Judgment, Chapter 12, Sentires Who Failed.

But, please, your AKAGI response - please.

[jamaksin]

By no means a complete list, but these may be helpful, and with no attempt to provide MLA, APA, ... citation formats:

All of the Prange stuff ("At Dawn We Slept" ...)... errors and all

The Howeth tome on the US Navy Electronics ... especially for radio, unilateral RDF procedures, intra-fleet simultaneously receive(on one frequency)-rebroadcast(on another frequency, ..., for US Navy capabilities in 1941,

Prados' "Combined Fleet Decoded"

Farago's "The Broken Seal" - importantly here - the paperback edition, especially the POSTSCRIPT section

Layton ... you have that ... and its errors and all,

Stinnett's "Day of Deceit" - again the paperback ... and yes, errors and all,

Wilford's "Pearl Harbor Redefined" - paperback ... and yes, there to, errors and all,

All of the Hearings ... Roberts, ... Thurmond/Spense.

The Pre-Pearl Habor Japanese Dispatches ... say the Navy's copy ... Naval Historical Center ... yes, errors and all.

Those should keep you busy on radio silence for starters ... much more adds to that.

On the codes ... please ask LS ... Oh, start with Kahn's seminal "The Codebreakers" ... yes, errors and all. For the "trade" magazine try "Cryptologia" ... again, just a start ...

I hope that helps ...

[Oh, yes, the Kido Butai broke radio silence ... known then and known now. With those sources above we can piece together exactly how it was done. It might also explain why so much Pearl Harbor material remains locked up in Navy vaults (e.g., Mid-Pacific RDF logs, ...) and beyond FOIA actions.

Why do you suspect the details on this AKAGI message are so radioactive?

Posit or imagine ... the timing of this summary, and what it would have taken to write it ... intercepting some traffic (time of day, frequency, signal characteristics, ... RDF bearings perhaps, ... decoding the traffic ... the code used was ... and it was read when ..., etc.]

[LS]

No, we aren't interested in what Stafford or Teddy Roosevelt or V.I. Lenin said about anything, we're interested in what YOU say: I'll repeat, as you dodge continually:

Were the codebreakers/cryptographers traitors? Yes or no?

[jamaksin]

Larry,

As we all now know ... what Safford said I cannot argue with.

But, please, your AKAGI reply would be good to have. A little effort here would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much in advance.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Thanks for the references. I've copied them down. Some I have never heard of. I think I'll start with the Code Breakers.

[LS]

State it yourself. You are getting real close here. Don't let up now! Are these men traitors? And don't cite damn Safford again. Tell us what YOU think.

[jamaksin]

Larry,

Hello and good morning.

What Safford said ... I cannot argue. Then, Stimson too, perhaps.

Those AKAGI materials, please be helpful there, please.

Thank you ever so much.

[jamaksin]

You are very welcome.

P.S., I did enjoy Plutarch's The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans - the Dryden translation is very good.