Replies

Sorry, changing the date doesn't change the fact that he's a boob. As I said, any idiot knows that you don't INITIALLY sail in the direction you may finally intend to go. Of course the British monitored it because (are you even listening to all this?) EVERYONE (get it? Everyone) expected the attack to be aimed at Singapore.

Second, it doesn't matter that Dutchie "had no reason to lie." That doesn't make his observation of "two carriers" correct(Oops. got that wrong. The Japanese NEVER sent just two of the Kido Butai "east"---six went NORTH.)

Again---and you don't seem to grasp this---what he saw were the carriers associated with the Singapore strike force.

Now, unless he was NORTH near ALASKA, and not "east," I don't know what he's watching. Moreover, if he's the Dutch attache, what's he doing "east" of Hawaii? He should be south . . . unless he's on a ship, in which case the fact that he saw anything means that no info about what he saw could have reached anyone.

Are you possibly seeing how convoluted and ridiculous this is? And of course, all the radio "evidence" this boob produces is just silly, as I already showed you.

And I characterized him as a "boob" based on the silly, simplistic, and sophomoric notion that someone "decodes" a message. As I showed you, it is a VERY long, drawn out process. Nothing---absolutely nothing intercepted on Dec. 2 would have made it to Hawaii's brass, let alone Washington, by Dec. 7. They just don't work that fast.

Oh, dear me.
If you have followed this thread, then you know, I'm only trying to make one very serious point.

It's not that FDR, Marshall & all knew PRECISELY what would happen on December 7, 1941, but rather that they knew ENOUGH to have provided a MUCH clearer WAR WARING to Kimmel and Short than they in fact did.

So first, I'd be interested to know if you disagree with that point?

Now, let's look at your comments, one by one:

Sorry, changing the date doesn't change the fact that he's a boob.

It certainly proves that you are not quite as smart as you think you are.

As I said, any idiot knows that you don't INITIALLY sail in the direction you may finally intend to go.

The Dutchman reported on Tuesday, December 2, that ONI was tracking a Japanese task force ("2 carriers") heading east about half-way between Japan and Hawaii. So, whether they initially sailed north, and in the end sailed south, they must mainly head east, which is where the ONI map plotted them on December 2 -- five days from Hawaii.

Of course the British monitored it because (are you even listening to all this?) EVERYONE (get it? Everyone) expected the attack to be aimed at Singapore.

It's simply not true that EVERYONE expected the attack to be aimed at Singapore. There were warnings, even months ahead of time, of an attack on Hawaii. Victor reviews these.

This argument of yours is so curious, I can't even get my arms around it. And yet you keep making it. Why? Why should it matter IN THE LEAST if the Japanese had two carriers, or four, or six headed toward Hawaii? Shouldn't even ONE CARRIER have been enough to have alerted Kimmel and Short?

Again---and you don't seem to grasp this---what he saw were the carriers associated with the Singapore strike force.

If they were "the Singapore strike force," why was our "Dutchie" told they were headed east half-way towards Hawaii?

Sorry pal, but at this point you are just jabbering complete nonsense. So, take a break, relax, clear your head and try it again. We are here talking about a Dutch naval attache in Washington DC, going to the US Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and SEEING there a map showing a Japanese task force HEADING EAST half way to Hawaii. He goes back again on Saturday, December 6, and is again shown that task force on the map, west of Honolulu. Got it?

Are you possibly seeing how convoluted and ridiculous this is?

Yes, I can certainly see "how convoluted and ridiculous" YOU sound!

And of course, all the radio "evidence" this boob produces is just silly, as I already showed you.

Sorry, but you "showed me" nothing, and the subject is just a bit complex to thoroughly review here. I think a reasonable person reading Victor's explanation can easily conclude that at least some messages were read that pointed clearly to Hawaii as the target.

And I argue that if even ONE message was read pointing to Hawaii, then Kimmel and Short should have been clearly warned. Do you disagree?

I strongly suggest you stop calling Victor a "boob", if only because every time you do, it reflects very poorly on YOU.

In this particular case, you have no real clue what Victor actually wrote, but you continue to blast away with ridiculous criticism that simply does not apply here. In fact, Victor's explanation is very detailed and CAREFUL. He does not assert more than the evidence allows, BUT where the evidence points, he does not flinch from looking.