The Truth About Pearl Harbor: A Debate [Did FDR know about Japan's plans in advance?]

The Independent Institute ^ | 30 January 2003 | Robert B. Stinnett, Stephen Budiansky

[Tublecane]

“Roosevelt utterly ignored the plight of China in his determination to counter the European eastern front death war against Stalin.”

The Eastern front was also against Western Europe; it wasn’t all about Russia. Besides, FDR was dead for 4 years before Mao won. Years during which the U.S. did not intervene on behalf of the opposition as forcefully as it could have, given our distrust of Chaing Kai-Shek.

“Stalin capitalized upon the destruction of China by the Japanese.”

Not like he did Eastern Europe. It was more of a comintern-type infiltration thing. Mao was never his bitch like the European satellite leaders were, since Russia never invaded and the Red Army wasn’t looking over his shoulder.

“When did Stalin declare war against the Japanese?”

Never. But I think the whole Yalta betrayal is a myth. The Red Army staying in Eastern Europe was a fait accompli short of another world war right after the second. We knew that, felt we had to get something out of Uncle Joe, but never assumed he’d fight the Japanese or hold free elections. At least, that’s what the clever guys knew. FDR was duped, but there was little option short of violence (which we were not prepared to commit to) anyway.

[Bellflower]

It is not logical to assume that conspiracies have never and will never happen. It is thinking like yours that makes us perfect marks to become victims of secret and evil plots because of a mindset of denial.

Even if not one of these conspiracies that you mentioned happened, most being absurd, it does not mean that something in the like vein has not, will not or cannot ever happen. With the conniving, morally bankrupt left I am watchful and leery. I do not put it past many to plan secretive and illegal acts to help them to try to pull off their unpopular and unconstitutional schemes.

I wonder how much chicanery was accomplished behind the scenes to advance Obama. I imagine more than we could guess.

I wonder how much of the stimulus money that has amounted to so very little has been siphoned off into private bank accounts due to kickbacks and embezzlement. The kind of money being bandied about, billions and billions, can be very tempting for the unscrupulous. I wonder just how much of it can really be accounted for and how much has "slipped through the cracks". That kind of money represents a whole lot of power. It's much more money poured out in a bigger hurry than ever before in history. It seems like a ripe scenario for large scale conspiracy level theft. And they want another huge stimulus package!

History is full of violent and secretive coups and schemings in the quest of wealth and power. To think that something like this cannot happen here because this is the USA is naive and dangerous. It is so easy to look reasonable and of good balance by constantly mocking any mention of the possibility of any given conspiracy, but be careful as that can be a deep trap if you become blind to reality.

[jamaksin]

FYI - while "Betrayal at Yalta" has many authors, in case you have not seen it (from 1959, revised in mid-80's), might I suggest:

Roosevelts' Road to Russia by George Crocker, not just for Yalta, but also the earlier Cairo and Tehran meetings.

Compare also the tenets of the so-called Atlantic Charter (which very quickly after WWII ended became merely a "press release" and "un-signed by the principals") with the positions of the chess pieces in August 1945.

To quote Professor H. E. (Elmer - not in the ham radio context) Barnes' paper "Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century":

"These selfsame anti-revisionist critics, who so heatedly denounce Revisionists for revealing and underling Roosevelt's responsibility, are the very ones who also vehemently content that, as a fundamental moral imperative, we simply had to enter the second World War to preserve our national self-respect and promote the safety and preserve the civilied operation of the human race. Hence, Roosevelt's success in putting us into this war should appear to them to be greatly to his credit as a stateman - "a good officer," as Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. has described him in this connection. Elementary logic would make it seem clear that the anti-revisionist writers should be grateful to Revisionists for having demonstrated Roosevelts' responsibility for this great and benign achievement far more definitively and clearly than the anti-revisionists have ever done. By denying his responsibility for what is to interventionists a superlative act of humanitarian statesmanship the anti-revisionists are depriving him of the credit due him for his allegedly comprehensive service to mankind."

Or, just who made the US the policeman of the world?

Or, what happened to the US Congress and their "declaration of war" duty? Involvement in Korea, say, came very easily, and much more easily ever since.

Or, when asked, "Who won WWII?" - just ask any Pole or the tens of millions that vanished behind the curtain thingy.

[Tublecane]

“Elementary logic would make it seem clear that the anti-revisionist writers should be grateful to Revisionists for having demonstrated Roosevelts’ responsibility for this great and benign achievement far more definitively and clearly than the anti-revisionists have ever done. By denying his responsibility for what is to interventionists a superlative act of humanitarian statesmanship the anti-revisionists are depriving him of the credit due him for his allegedly comprehensive service to mankind”

That is not a case of elementary logic. There are other matters for consideration. However much some would like to praise his leadership in bringing civilization back to Western Europe and parts of Asia, or whatever, clandestinely conspiring to precipitate war, up to and including allowing ourselves to be attacked, is just wrong.

You see, one can want war, and one can say we waited too long to get into war, without believing any means of entering the war are allowed. Therefore, even if war is what you wanted, the manner by which FDR entered the war is not necessarily justifiable. For most people, it’s not a matter of “by any means possible”. The author of that paragraph knows better. Morality is complex.

[nkycincinnatikid]

I obviously respect the thought process evident in your posts, so I argue with you. You wrote “given our distrust of C-K-S”. Isn’t that typical of Dem leaders distrust of Diem, Oops!, Van Thieu, and Karzhai, and other scapegoats in dicey situations that they simply wanted to bail out on?
Where was the fine tuned sense of distrust of Stalin for Goodness Sakes? And I hope and think you know better than to believe that Germany ever willingly warred against western Europe in the 20th century.

[jamaksin]

Um ... yes, very complex. Especially as moral relativism was so much in vogue (as now). Recall the "moral embargo" thingy against Japan prior to the "real" one?

But, is it so complex? Is it not rather just whose moral compass applies? That barrel of the gun, for example.

FDR and his War Cabinet deliberately neglected the Pericles model before the Athenian Senate, said one thing akin to "no sons going to war" yet took actions to enter war.

They might better have said ... Hey guys, even while our territory is not at risk - we simply must save the world. We just got too - think of the jobs ... that "giddy minds and foreign quarrels".

So, are morals absolute?

Does not "is" "is" fits nicely here?

[BroJoeK]

from post #69: "I did't see you on this thread yet. Here is a ping since this is an area of interest for you."

Thanks for the ping.
Now that I have some time, have read through all these posts and they are excellent! Many hit the nail right on the head. Most of the points I would have argued with turned out to be nicely answered by others. I am very impressed.

And some of this has been mentioned before, but will list again references I recommend:

Making the case that Roosevelt not only knew in advance of the Pearl Harbor attack, but in some sense "provoked" it:

Robert Stinnett c2000 "Day of Deceit"

George Victor c2007 "The Pearl Harbor Myth"

Making the case that FDR did not know in advance:

Joseph Perisco c2001 "Roosevelt's Secret War"

Larry Schweikart c2008 "48 Liberal Lies About American History"

My opinion is that -- despite my high respect for Perisco and Schweikart otherwise -- those who argue "Roosevelt knew" make a stronger case than those who say he didn't. And the George Victor book especially puts the whole thing in proper context.

Stinnett makes at least three important points:

• Not just some, but virtually all of the Japanese codes had been broken long before Pearl Harbor.
• Messages revealing the locations of Japanese fleets were being sent to all major commanders EXCEPT Kimmel and Short -- even by their own cryptographers!
• It wasn't just the aircraft carriers which were sent away a few days before December 7. It was also EVERY modern warship (over 20 of them) then stationed at Pearl Harbor.

But George Victor spells out the context -- political, military & strategic which best makes sense of it all, imho.

[BroJoeK]

from #110: "In fairness to FDR, he seems to have been under the belief that the commanders at Pearl Harbor had been warned and could easily repulse an air attack. In truth, the early warnings were not clear and urgent and the last one was not transmitted in a timely fashion due to technical problems."

This is exactly the right point. The various "war warnings" sent to commanders were ALL clear on one thing: Japan MUST be allowed to strike the first blow. The reasons are obvious and entirely political -- Roosevelt could not, would not, lead a divided America into war.

But neither could he have imagined the level of destruction the Japanese delivered on December 7. So, Roosevelt needed the Japanese to strike first, and for that was willing to sacrifice a ship or two.

How does the old saying put it? Be careful what you wish for...

[BroJoeK]

from 118: "Hitler at first doubted it as well, but he got reassurances from Japan that they would help against Russia, then afterwards, he agreed to declare war on the US."

I think the reverse is true.

In the fall of 1941 there was a great debate amongst Japanese leaders as to whether they should support Hitler and attack Russia (favored by the Japanese Army) or leave Hitler to his own resources and turn south toward the US, British and Dutch colonies for their natural resources, especially oil (favored by the Navy).

The Japanese Navy not only won the debate, but had the "Russia First" advocates purged from their positions of influence.

How could this happen? I think because Hitler himself did not oppose it. And that's because, by the fall of 1941 Hitler had been on a two year military roll -- rolling over every obstacle put in his way. The Russians were just pushovers -- he had already killer or captured millions more Russian soldiers than the numbers of Germans sent on Operation Barbarosa.

Point is: Hitler did not then believe he would need the Japanese to help him out around Moscow. So he told them, in essence: go ahead and attack the Americans.

Turned out, the Russians were not quite as weak as Hitler's experience had lead him to believe -- especially Stalin's best troops, which in 1939 had already fought and defeated the best the Japanese had to offer.

[Tublecane]

“You wrote ‘given our distrust of C-K-S’. Isn’t that typical of Dem leaders distrust of Diem, Oops!, Van Thieu, and Karzhai, and other scapegoats in dicey situations that they simply wanted to bail out on?”

Yes, it does. And in a sense, I sympathize. We can only get so far picking and choosing who we back; more often than not, we have to settle. That’s the main problem with being the world’s police. We’ve got the guns and bombs, but not the stomach for empire.

“Where was the fine tuned sense of distrust of Stalin for Goodness Sakes?”

Roosevelt was at first completely duped by “Uncle Joe”. It didn’t help that he was under extreme external pressure (from the Nazis) to get along to go along. But when it mattered most, and when he could have redeemed his naivete, Roosevelt was an empty seat. I’ve come to believe he was a walking (or rolling, as it were) dead man in his last term. Disturbing, how much a quasi-corpse determined one of European history’s greatest epochs.

At least Truman, a quick study, was around by ‘47, when the containment policy was adopted. Better to have had him at the turning point. Then again, perhaps there was no way out of the impass at the end of the war. And certainly, the Truman Doctrine is overrated. It mattered for people like the Greeks, the West Germans, the South Koreans, the South Vietnamese, etc. Less so for China, the Eastern bloc, etc.

As for the world as a whole, nuclear weapons are to thank for no third world war and no wider communist expansion. Of course, without presidents willing to pretend to be willing to use them, they are useless.

“And I hope and think you know better than to believe that Germany ever willingly warred against western Europe in the 20th century.”

Huh? I think they did so twice. They were the marginal aggressors in WWI and obviously the outright aggressors in WWII. Or do you think the occupation of the Rhineland made war inevitable? Certainly, it was provacative. But first of all, it was a consequence of previous aggression (not an intelligent consequence on the part of France, but a consequence nonetheless). And just like with Japan, the answer, among civilized nations, is not to go ahead and conquer everyone. Also, other countries in some way inciting you to violence is not the same as justifying your violence.

[Tublecane]

“Um ... yes, very complex. Especially as moral relativism was so much in vogue (as now).”

I think you misunderstand. The idea that complexity and relativism go together is a fallacy. If by complexity you mean mystery, as in it’s to complex to figure out, than it is. But that’s not what I meant. I meant to say that there was little chance of people falling into the “by any means possible” trap (which is a decidedly simpler moral code than what prevails in international relations). Because the common ethos, now and then, is easily more complex.

Relativists love to paint moralists as too simple for earthly existence. “Kids are going to have sex anyway, so what’s the point in teaching absitinence?” “The Bible says we have to keep the sabbath holy or be put to death, and you believe in the Bible, so does that mean you want there to be a holocaust?” These are charicatures, nothing more. So, too, are the ways our side often portrays cigarette Nazis, for instance.

The point is, a sizeable minority wanted war, and worked for war, before Pearl. Scholars to this day continue to praise them for doing so. However, it does not follow that they should be happy if FDR lied. One ca believe in the justness of the war and the injustice of the means of entering the war. That’s what I meant about morality being complex.

“They might better have said ... Hey guys, even while our territory is not at risk - we simply must save the world. We just got too - think of the jobs ... that ‘giddy minds and foreign quarrels’”

You sorta make my point here. If anything, we should be harder still on FDR, for all the cynical things he did. But at least pro-war FDR apologists are honorable enough to stop short of praising FDR for lying about Pearl.

“Does not ‘is’ ‘is’ fits nicely here?”

No. Professor H. E. (Elmer - not in the ham radio context) Barnes, in his paper “Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century,” seems to think it should. Thankfully, those terrible “anti-revisionists” retain a modicum of integrity and fall short of joining Plato in believing any lie is excusable if it’s in the interest of the Good.

[Tublecane]

“Professor H. E. (Elmer - not in the ham radio context) Barnes, in his paper ‘Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century,’ seems to think it should.”

For the anti-revisionists, I mean. Though presumably not for himself.

[Tublecane]

“If by complexity you mean mystery, as in it’s to complex to figure out, than it is. But that’s not what I meant”

Sorry about all the malaprops. to = too; than = then

[Deb]

Political chicanery is hardly on the level of Dec. 7th or the other conspiracies that morons love to wallow in and pretend they know "the real story".

Plus the fact that all the Obama deceits were committed, and continue to be committed, out in the open, in plain view of the whole world, shows that no conspiracies were necessary.

He said what he was going to do to the country during the campaign. We saw who his friends, backers and political handlers were. We see who he has appointed to run our country and destroy it. No conspiracies. No sneaking. It's all there.

[jamaksin]

Better as homonyns, e.g., great/grate - heard/herd - sight/site/cite - ...
Or, of course, Two bee oar knot too be ...

[jamaksin]

Also, from Layton's (with Costello and Pineau) And, I Was There ...:

Page 342: "Wilkinson recounted how he had been accompained by Captain McCollum to the munitions building where he found General Miles and Colonel Bratton already present in the boardroom. His digest of the evidence of the morning of 19 December suggest that there was a certain degree of collusion and deliberate misstatement in what appears to have been a collaborative effort by army and navy to convery the impression that no intelligence had been withheld from Admiral Kimmel or General Short."

Also, Wilford's Pearl Harbor Redefined from his MA thesis in History (thesis has more detail) might be added to you list.

[jamaksin]

And, let us not forgot the Knox message of midnight 6Dec41 to Kimmel that has vanished - imagine that.

[BroJoeK]

from post #127: "Where were FDR and Churchill during the SS LUSITANIA sinking?

"Finally, just a note ... research the "Zimmerman Telegraph" as the trigger for the US entry into WW I. "

Say what? Lusitania was sunk in 1915. Roosevelt and Churchill were both then in charge of their respective Navies. What's the point?

The Zimmerman telegram was passed from British intelligence to the Americans -- could that be "suspicious"? Possibly, except that the Germans themselves have confirmed its accuracy.

[BroJoeK]

from post #144 Pistolshot: "Had Adm. Kimmel known of an approaching attack, he would have had the fleet at sea, instead of anchored at Pearl, and the loss of life might have been greater."

Here is a lengthy selection of quotes from Stinnett, starting on page 142. Lieutennant Commander Rochefort was the commander of Hawaii's station HYPO, the combat intelligence center for the Pacific Fleet. Ambassador Grew was US Ambassador in Tokyo. All emphasis below is mine:

"By October 8, Rochefort's operations were on the highest priority -- the scoop watch. It produced two results within two weeks, when Rochefort's cryptographers discovered the scope of an emerging Japanese two-pronged military strategy. (1) the Southeast Asia Invasion and (2), the screening maneuver involving air forces in the North and Central Pacific that became the Pearl Harbor raid...

"By the next day, October 22, Rochefort had discovered the formation of a separate Japanese air operation that he said was focused on the Kurile Islands and would extend eastward and south over a vast area of the North and Central Pacific..."

"Major collateral evidence concerning Japanese plans for hostile action came from Ambassador Joseph Grew in Tokyo... 'War with the United States may come with dramatic and dangerous suddenness,' was the closing sentence of a lengthy report sent by Grew to Secretary of State Cordell Hull the next day..."

[Grew's aide made a tour near a Japanese naval concentration area.]
"Soon after the attache and his wife returned, Ambassador Grew sent a much stronger warning to Washington..."

"When Rochefort's estimates and Grew's warnings were received by Washington they triggered another astonishing event. Navy officials declared the North Pacific Ocean a "Vacant Sea" and ordered all US and allied shipping out of the waters.

Rear Admiral Richmond K Turner, War Plans officer for the United States Navy in 1941, explained the reasoning with a startling admission: "We were prepared to divert traffic when we believed that war was imminent. We sent the traffic down via Torres Straight so that the track of the Japanese task force would be clear of any traffic"...

The Vacant Sea order dramatizes Admiral Kimmel's helplessness in the face of FDR's desires. The admiral tried on a number of occasions to do something to defend Pearl Harbor, based on Rochefort's troubling intercepts.

"Exactly two weeks prior to the attack, Kimmel ordered a search for a Japanese carrier force north of Hawaii. Without White House approval he moved the Pacific Fleet into the North Pacific Ocean in the precise area where Japan planned to launch her carrier attack on Pearl Harbor.

"But his laudable efforts came to naught. When the White House military officials learned Kimmel's warships were in the area of what turned out to be the intended Japanese launch site, they issued directives that caused Kimmel to quickly order the Pacfific Fleet out of the North Pacific and back to its anchorages in Pearl Harbor.

"This unfortunate reversal of direction has been ignored by every Pearl Harbor investigation...

The Washington justification for these actions was as clear as it was brutal:

From Admiral Stark (Washington) 11/28/41: "IF HOSTILITIES CANNOT REPEAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED THE UNITED STATES DESIRES THAT JAPAN COMMIT THE FIRST OVERT ACT."

[BroJoeK]

from post #149: "I found Stinnett's book to be a mess. He confuses terms & therefore draws the wrong concusions. For instance, one tool that intelligence uses is "Traffic Analysis". This is NOT the same thing as reading the actual decrypted message. Stinnett confuses the reader into thinking this is the same thing. It is not.

What a crock! I find your criticisms of Stinnett to be total nonsense. Unless, of course, you care to quote some examples. ;-)