Posted on 12/06/2001 2:03:04 AM PST by Ada Coddington
Pentagon Still Scapegoats Pearl Harbor Fall Guys
By Robert B. Stinnett*
As we remember the roughly 2,400 persons killed in the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor -- the worst one-day loss of American lives prior to Sept. 11th of this year -- recently declassified U.S. military documents authored more than 60 years ago compel us to revisit some troubling questions.
At issue is American knowledge of Japanese military plans to attack Hawaii prior to Dec. 7, 1941. The first question is whether President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his top military chieftains provoked Japan into an "overt act of war." The second question is whether Japan’s military plans were obtained in advance by the U.S. but concealed from the Hawaiian military commanders, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short. Both Kimmel and Short were relieved of their commands, blamed for failing to ward off the attack, and demoted in rank after the Japanese raid.
The latter question was answered in the affirmative last year on October 30, 2000, when President Bill Clinton signed a defense appropriations bill containing congressional findings that both Kimmel and Short were denied crucial military intelligence.
However, despite the numerous pardons he issued shortly before leaving office, President Clinton deferred to the Pentagon’s long-standing policy against posthumously restoring the commanders to their 1941 ranks. Nonetheless, the congressional findings should be widely seen as an exoneration of years of blame assigned to Kimmel and Short.
But the other important question remains, looming ever larger in the inevitable comparisons made between Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11th: Does the blame for the Pearl Harbor disaster revert to President Roosevelt?
Before Walt Disney Studios released the movie "Pearl Harbor" earlier this year, the film’s producer, Jerry Bruckheimer, commented on claims of FDR’s foreknowledge by saying "That’s all b___s___."
Yet Roosevelt believed that provoking Japan into an attack was the only option he had to overcome the powerful America First non-interventionist movement. Though Germany had conquered most of Europe, and her U-Boats were sinking American ships in the Atlantic Ocean, Americans wanted nothing to do with "Europe’s War."
However, Germany made a strategic error. She, along with her Axis partner, Italy, signed the mutual assistance treaty with Japan, the Tripartite Pact, on September 27, 1940. Ten days later, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, a U.S. Naval officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence, saw an opportunity to counter the U.S. anti-war movement by provoking Japan into a state of war with the U.S., and triggering the mutual assistance provisions of the Tripartite Pact.
Memorialized in a secret memo dated October 7, 1940, McCollum’s proposal called for eight provocations aimed at Japan.
President Roosevelt acted swiftly, and throughout 1941, implemented the remaining seven provocations.
The island nation’s militarists used the provocations to seize control of Japan and organize their military forces for war against the U.S., Great Britain, and the Netherlands. During the next 11 months, the White House followed the Japanese war plans through the intercepted and decoded diplomatic and military communications intelligence.
At least 1,000 Japanese radio messages per day were intercepted by monitoring stations operated by the U.S. and her Allies, and the message contents were summarized for the White House. The intercept summaries from Station CAST on Corregidor Island were current -- contrary to the assertions of some who claim that the messages were not decoded and translated until years later -- and they were clear: Pearl Harbor would be attacked on December 7, 1941, by Japanese forces advancing through the Central and North Pacific Oceans.
As I explained to a policy forum audience at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California -- which was telecast nationwide by C-SPAN on July 4th last year -- my research shows that not only were Kimmel and Short cut off from the Japanese communications intelligence pipeline, so were the American people. The coverup lasted for nearly 59 years.
*Robert B. Stinnett is Media Fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. and the author of Day of Deceit: the truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (Free Press).
Firstly, I wish that all Americans remember and honor those who gave their last full measure the morning of December 7, 1941 at Pearl Harbor. Please, a moment for reflection and prayer:
... shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered --
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he that today sheds his blood for me
Shall be my brother.
USS Arizona Memorial
====================================================================
It is somewhat curious to me that this topic remains as divisive as it does. After all, to paraphrase Fox Mulder, from the X-Files television series, "The Truth is Out There." Isn't it????
Look in any American high school history text covering WWII - it will clearly say Pearl Harbor was a surpise attack. But, given the state of American secondary education, it is any wonder that Johnny or Suzie study history at all ... or can even read and comprehend the factors leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack. Does American higher education require history courses at all today? [N.B., Americans are very critical of other countries textbook treatment of WWII - particularly German and Japanese textbooks.]
Recently Mr. Budiansky offers "Closing the Book on Pearl Harbor," [Cryptologia, April 2000], Prof. Kimball uses the many "lives of cats" metaphor [H-DIPLO Website - www2.h-net.msu.edu/~diplo/], and Mr. Jewell has "... declassification of the last documents relating to Pearl." [Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc. Website - www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha]. Yes, indeed, for many the question is definitely settled and has been for a very long time. Or is it?
Like that little pink bunny, the Pearl Harbor "blame" debate just keeps on a-ticking.
Publishing began on Pearl Harbor almost immediately after VJ-Day. The now nine or ten (Roberts, ..., Thurmond/Spence Hearings and now the Dorn Report) Congressional/Army/Navy investigations, the long series of FDR praetorians (e.g., Bailey, Morison, Fies, Wohlstetter, Rauch, Prange, ..., Layton, Prados, ... etc.) or the Conspiracy acolytes (Morgenstern, Beard, Flynn, Barnes,Tansill, ... Tolland, Costello, ... Stinnett, ... forecoming from Villa and Victor, ... etc.), the oft commented upon efforts of "Pearl Harbor After a Quarter Century" and "Pearl Harbor After Fifty Years" and the myriad of movies, ... , etc. just continue. Even in the Wall Street Journal (December 3, 2001, page A19) we find an article from Robert L. Bartley "September 11, December 7 and Limits of Intelligence" ... note his "The chestnut still lingers ..."
From an earlier observation:
"The investigations of the Pearl Habor attack have been many and varied. The complete facts will never be known. Most of the so-called investigations have been attempts to suppress, mislead, or confuse those who seek the truth. From the beginning to the end, facts and files have been witheld so as to reveal only those items of information which benefit the administration under investigation. Those seeking the truth are told that other facts or documents cannot be revealed because they are intermingled in personal diaries, pertain to our relations with foreign countries, or are sworn to contain no information of value. ...
....
Early in 1941 administration officials reached a secret agreement with British and Dutch officials which committed us to go to war against Japan if Japanese forces crossed a certain line [sic., Isthmus of Kra, 100 degrees East, 10 degrees North]. Crossing this line would have indicated an attack on the possessions of one, two, or all three of the signing powers. This meant that we were pledged to go to war if British or Dutch Far East possessions were attacked. Since this agreement had not been submitted to, much less approved by, Congress, it was unconstitutional. The adminstration was, therefore, extremely anxious to conceal this fact from the American public. Accordingly, every effort was made to prevent its disclosure during the investiagtions.
For these reasons, it is perhaps only human that Washington officials have desired to conceal what they did or did not do with the information at hand." [Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, page 409-410, from 1953].
Recognise that much water has gone over the dam in this bi-polar quest ... and the material releases continue apace and the tools used have increased in robustness over time. In particular the FOIA has pryed away many nugents, the Venona de-crypts [e.g., "Harry the Hop" Hopkins is Agent 19, ...]are relatively recent, ...
With newer materials isn't one obligated to "revise" one's position if indicated from these materials? Perhaps not, as in .. "It is the US Navy, right or wrong, is it the NAVY [e.g., USS Indianapolis, USS Maddox, USS Iowa, Tailhook, ...], ... or that other tale of delay, denial, ... ending with a little blue dress ... Some Americans do seem to have a special "blind-eye" gene on these institutional issues.
Most recently the brouhaha rising the most vitriol is Mr. Stinnett's book "Day of Deceit," and in particular the Afterword section of the paperback edition ... "Nevertheless, the major secrets of Pearl Harbor are at last in the open. After years [sic., decades] of denial, the truth is clear: we knew." [last paragraph, page 263] For me, Mr. Stinnett has been very helpful in reproducing for the public items not seen before: (a) McCollum's Action Plan [as an exercise in textual criticism, scan Pearl Harbor documents for "overt act" - where is your FIRST occurrence?], (b) a TESTM report, (c) the names of several radio-intercept operators, some with their sine, (d) the identification of still classified material (e.g., GUPID reports), and (e) August 1941 Nagumo Call Sign List. The reproduction of the FBI report [page 316, paperback edition] as evidence of reading military codes is perhaps less helpful, however.
Instead of going near those "white hot" sink holes of radio silence (viz., did the Akagi call for tankers, long vs. short wave, " ... almost complete radio silence .. " ), and the in/outs of JN-25a or JN-25b6/7/...recovered "values" as "confirmed" or "good" or , ... , "none ..." " ... reportable" or "fragments" or "not one JN-25b ... " or "one decrypt is known by former CAST personnel, ..." applied manpower here versus there, "black-bag" jobs, ... "It is difficult to fathom why NSA decided to withold these decrypts for so long. Of such decisions are conspiracy theories made." [H-DIPLO H-Net Discussion Logs - Cryptography and Pearl Harbor, Erskine, 26 Jan 2001, posted 11:59:49] ...
I'd suggest a different forensic approach. As an FYI however, ... with the latest release to the National Archives II of Japanese naval code materials some "facts" may be the "light at the end of the tunnel." [Or, the classic "Prego" evidence discovery tactic - within all those boxcars of papers are put those "smoking" guns in "missed filed" places. ... As in, " ... Well, they were declassified weren't they."] When is complete really complete ... ?
And, as a reminder from Harry Elmer Barnes, these may prevent that familar tone from developing - even today:
"The methods followed by the opponents of Revisionism fall mainly into these modes of operation: (1) denying revisionist historians access to public documents; (2) intimidating publishers who might otherwise be willing to print revisionist materials; (3) ignoring or smearing revisionist books and articles; and (4) smearing and otherwise seeking to intimidate revisionist authors."
So, given the above, my different "Moot Court" tack - for me open/remaining issues after sixty years.
... Missing documents - Where are they???
British: BJ/35, No.: 098452, missing paragraphs [Clausen, pp. 360-361]
American: "The White House File" [Kimmel, pp. 125-126] Miss Tully is no help here!
The Knox message, [Layton, page 331] Paragraph beginning:
"This appeared to astonish the secretary of the navy. He had carefully studies all the dispatches and background intelligence before leaving Washington. "Did you get Saturday night the dispatch the navy department sent out?" he asked. Kimmel denied receiving any war warning after 27 November. The secretary of the navy declared emphatically, "Well, we sent you one."
"Winds Execute" message ... the now famous (or not so). A classic bi-polar situation. Perhaps Dutch (e.g., Ranneft's cable traffic), Canadian, ..., releases will shed some light here. Good old JD #7001...[Layton, page 529]
SS Lurline logs ... another "famous" bi-polar - did exist/not important/ ... or so what ... document.
Stimson asked the Navy Department on Saturday (Dec. 6th) evening to furnish him on Sunday (Dec. 7th) morning a compilation of men-of-war in the Far East: British, American, Japanese, Dutch, Russian, and for the American Pacific Fleet. [Congressional Minority Views, page 528]. Where is it?
... ... Known but still classified documents - the stuff of conspiracies - Completeness???
British: C/8161, 25 November Menzies to Churchill [Costello, page 415, item no. 39]
Under Official Secrets Acts - those pre-Pearl Harbor with a 75 year limit.
Churchill Private Papers - some stipulated for release in 2069 - 100 years after WSC's death.
American: FBI files on Shivers' espionage probe in Hawaii.
All US Navy RDF reports for the Pacific covering November/December 1941.
.... ... Destruction of documents - more stuff of conspiracies - Very odd ...
American - Admiral Noyes ..."Destroy all notes or anything in writing" [Stinnett, page 255]
- General Marshall - Friedman during Congressional Hearing " ... rumor that Marshall ordered the destruction of pre-Pearl Harbor documents."
... Other bits and pieces ...
"Bomb Plots" - Why were Kimmel nor Short never told of these pre-attack. The ONLY American military installation to have a grid pattern established for the anchorage, berthing, and on-going reporting of shipping and their movement in/out, ... light signals to end the night of Dec 6, 1941 ... was Pearl Harbor.
This Japanese effort began and was known in Washington months before Pearl Harbor.
Oaths of Secrecy - From Clausen [page 270] ... "Ferguson hit the roof. He could not comprehend that these men had sworn to tell the truth before various investigating bodies, but, at the same time, were bound by a higher oath not to reveal anything about Magic." [Seems Americans have multiple levels of oaths - "To tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." - "To protect and defend the Constitution ... enemies foreign and domestic" - "Not to reveal Magic ..." - "Loyalty oaths ..." [ For example, recently, ... depends on what "is" is ..., but that's OK - it was all about sex and not about the denial of a citizen's rights ...]
- From Kimmel [page 125] ... "General Miles was ordered not to disclose messages." ...
- During the MacArthur hearings, Gen. Marshall told the world that he considered loyalty to his Chief superior to loyalty to his country [Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, page 476.]
[Does this explain how Gen. Marshall could invite on November 15, 1941 a dozen of so reporters ["I Can Tell It Now," E. P. Dutton, 1964, Robert Sherrod, page 39-45] to a secret conference [B-17's will save the day .. ]and yet not recall where he was the night of December 6, 1941 when asked during the Congressional Investigations? But, then Stahlman has answered that [See Tolley Papers] - Marshall and the War Cabinet were at the White House.
Remember that earlier mention of the Knox message? Is there an oath of silence unto the grave for those with direct knowledge of Pearl Harbor [Marshall's Staff dinner]? Is the "Duty, Honor, Country" code at work concerning Pearl Harbor - odd that "Country" is last in that code?
In Michael V. Gannon's "Pearl Harbor Betrayed: The True Story of a Man and a Nation Under Attack," he begins with the definition of of the word "betrayal" and ends with a letter (NEVER SENT) from Kimmel to Stark. The text in the middlel connects a number of dots ... "Terrible Turner" ... feuds ... but in Kimmel letter the word "despicable" stands out. Stark's loyalty???
....
So, posit, as in a crime scene, when a prosecutor is looking for motive-opportunity-means- ... all applying to Pearl Harbor. As in a RICO case, expect the closing of the ranks as the norm, the evidence becomes "tainted," the "witnesses" die, mentally age, develop amnesia (selective or otherwise, for example Captain Creighton's testimony on his message to Admiral Hart, and of course Lt. Robert O'Dell testimony wishing to set the record straight, ... ) and begin to have different degrees of veracity. But, remember Kimmel or Short were never court-martialled - why? Numerous COMINT personnel were pressured not to testify, none were ever called ... but Dewey was "leaked" some material ... scapegoating of Kimmel/Short did not sit well with some. Convenience is always suspect ... of course partisan and Janet Reno-like gate-keepers do help.
The trouble, from a RICO defence [nee "court" historian] viewpoint, with Pearl Harbor is most simple. Over these last sixty years no exculpatory evidence - polemics yes, traducement yes, evidence no - has been put forth. The bulwarks of radio silence and naval codes, with the steady drip, drip, drip, ... from FOIA releases, ..., etc., seem now less secure. Yes we have stories - FDR "loved" the Navy [counter is "cruisers popping up", conveying in the Atlantic, the USS Lanikai, ...), the "wink 'n nod" from the American people to " ... just do it and hope it is all right in the end" (versus 1941 Gallup poll for staying out of foreign wars, "Cash and Carry" to get money and create jobs ... to "Lend-Lease" ... violation of Neutrality Act, ...) ... that only ... but no mutually exclusive evidence.
I believe Morgenstern states it correctly:
"The secret war was waged against nations which the leadership of this country had chosen as enemies months before they became formal enemies by a declaration of war. It was waged also, by psychological means, by progagande, and deception , against the American people, who were thought by their leaders to be laggard in embracing war. The people were told that acts which were equivalent to war were intended to keep the nation out of war. Constitutional processes existed only to be circumvented , until finally the war-making power of Congress was reduced to the act of ratifying an accomplished act." [Morgenstern, page 330]
But all of the above begs a simple "moot court" question, and participates the defence ... For Americans today, regarding Pearl Harbor, was it a "Cheap Price" as Captain Joseph J. Rochefort [1898-1976] said, for the world we now have?
What happened after WWII - that "just" war, ... "We just had to get into it "..."...that war for democracy across the world" ... ? What were ...Tehran/Yalta/Potsdam/ ... all about? Ask the Poles, ... ask those millions who faded behind the "Iron Curtain" what WWII was all about. Think of the Cold War ... Korean was a "police action" ... VietNam ... Bosnia, ... ,etc. Is Mark Willey correct ... "Pearl Harbor - The Mother of All Conspiracies" ...
Where are the American people today in their understanding of Pearl Harbor, especially as it relates to today???
"America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is a champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interst and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force." - John Quincy Adams
Think about December 7, 1941 - and then think of today - sixty years minus one day - after Pearl Harbor.
With respect,
jamaksin /Sgnd/
Actually, this assertion from Stinnett's book is in dispute. His work is riddled with inaccuracies and misstatements, according to reviewers familiar with the subject.
My opinion is that FDR was trying to provoke Japan but this did not guarantee a war with Germany -- which is what he really wanted. That we were "reading" the Japanese Diplomatic code prior to Pearl Harbor is not in dispute, but radio traffic between Japanese embassies was not likely to include specific military targeting information. Lastly, America has a long tradition of sacking unsuccessful military commanders. We sometimes even fire those who were merely unfortunate. That Short & Kimmell got scr*w*d is really not all that surprising -- they belong to an elite club.
I always advise caution and suspicion of any "official government position."
At the time Pearl Harbor was attacked our armed forces were no larger than Polands and FDR was ham strung by congress. He could not build a military. He was unable to gain support to enter WWII. If these were his reasons, it worked.
The armed forces were small because FDR made them small. He had been President for many years. In the mid 1930's Douglas McArthur left a meeting with FDR at the White House and had to actually vomit on the steps when he left because he was so upset at the cuts FDR was making.
Regarding FDR being unable to gain support for entering the war, well, we must remember that he ran for President on the solemn oath that he would keep America out of the war. Many think that he was great for bringing us into it by allowing the men on Pearl to die that day. Others think that he was leading America forward into the global socialist utopia while saving the regime of "Uncle Joe" Stalin.
The answer is probably that MacArthur was politically well connected, having been a former army chief of staff. Plus the whole concept for the defense of the islands was to fight a holding action from Bataan & Corregidor and await relief from the Fleet. With Pearl Harbor, relief was not to be expected. Whatever else we may think of MacArthur, he at least did his job.
That sounds a lot like Al Gore!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.