Posted on 05/17/2002 8:27:09 AM PDT by Registered
I don't know anything about Flynn. Toland's book "Infamy" came out (to the best of my knowledge) in 1982, two years after Prange died.
As I said in a previous posting, I am a retired naval cryptographer. I also have a Ph.D. in ancient history (well, actually, classics, but my dissertation was on a historical subject.) I have always found Prange's work unimpressive. He strikes me as one of what Charles Beard called the "court historians," who told the story that suited the establishment, and thereby advanced his career. Because his aim, like that of the mainstream media, is not to present the truth, when one learns from him, it is despite him. Whereas people like Beard, Toland, Stinnett, and Wilford are primarily interested in the truth.
Maybe, maybe not. You've documented well how the government seemed to be covering for Al Qaeda in the embassy bombings. Not to mention the stuff on Kosovo. The administration would what, lay out the case to Congress before attacking? What would those hearings be like? (Of course, the Afghanistan takeover was only politically justified inasmuch the Taliban was hoasting Al Qaeda.)
If you have a particular source of information, please provide the citation.
Who is Art Bell?
As to Prange's ability to counter so-called conspiracy theories, no support in this corner.
Also, comment please on the continued denial of access to any of the pre-Pearl Harbor Japanese naval "raw" intercepts to this day.
In a previous posting someone claimed that on the morning of the Luisitania's sinking Churchill asked "what would the Americans think if the Luisiatnia was sunk?" This is hearsay, nevertheless it seems to be in British history.
Probably because they would show gross incompetence and negligence on the part of the US Government.
I am not a defender of Roosevelt. I do believe that he did purposely try to provoke Japan into a war. I also believe that he did not take steps to adequately defend the fleet in Hawaii. However, one can believe all this without believing FDR deviously engineered the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
The Japanese probably had the capability on Dec. 7, 1941 to so thoroughly destroy our naval facilities in Hawaii as to make it impossible for us to fight a war in the Pacific. They also might have had the capability to invade and capture Hawaii, thereby putting the west coast of the US at risk.
In order to believe that Roosevelt engineered the attack on Pearl Harbor, one must believe that Roosevelt somehow knew ahead of time that the Japanese would make an attack that was damaging, but not so damaging as to take us out of the war. But how could he possibly have known that?
But then, also consider:
See Stimson's diary (Stimson Papers, Yale University), to paraphrase - let the Japanese fire the first shot [sic: needed to overcome Americans' sentiment not to have men killed in another foreign war], but hoping for not too much damage to ourselves.
See "The Broken Seal" (paperback edition) in its Postscript - Japanese Striking Force was tracked and reported to US Navy prior to Decemeber 7, 1941. [SS Lurline report(s) now "missing" from Archives and FDR Library.]
See Stinnett ("Day of Deceit" - paperback's Afterward Section), and Wilford's "Pearl Harbor Redefined" ... ditto on Striking Force being tracked - that is, radio silence is a myth.
See "Bomb Plot" messages (J-17/J-19 and PA-K2 code systems), all decoded and available to Washington beginning spring of 1941 ... to which Kimmel and Short were never given access.
...
Those puzzling questions of remaining classified materials - the "raw" intercepts, the FBI files, ..., etc. even after sixty plus years.
Bottom line ... FDR and his War Cabinet knew - where, when, how, and why.
Kimmel and Short deserved some of the blame for Pearl Harbor, but some higher-ups, particularly Marshall, got off too easy. No question about that. McArthur probably also got off too easy for getting caught by a sneak air attack in the Philippines the next day. The difference in the treatment of Kimmel and McArthur has always struck me as unfair.
But then, also consider:
See Stimson's diary (Stimson Papers, Yale University), to paraphrase - let the Japanese fire the first shot [sic: needed to overcome Americans' sentiment not to have men killed in another foreign war], but hoping for not too much damage to ourselves.
Conspiracy theorists make a big deal about this passage but I fail to see anything sinister about it. There is nothing in Stimson's diary that indicates he knew there would be an attack at Pearl Harbor.
See "The Broken Seal" (paperback edition) in its Postscript - Japanese Striking Force was tracked and reported to US Navy prior to Decemeber 7, 1941. [SS Lurline report(s) now "missing" from Archives and FDR Library.]
Someone screwed up bigtime.
Bottom line ... FDR and his War Cabinet knew - where, when, how, and why.
You have not addressed the obvious problems with the theory that FDR purposely allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor:
I disagree on Kimmel and Short. If you systematically deny material for defense, e.g., over 200 PBY's were shipped, via Lend-Lease, abroad; if you deliberately deny intelligence - termination of negotiations, destruction of the code machines, Bomb Plot and light signals, ... disposition of Japanese fleet, ..., etc. then:
The field commanders cannot be held solely accountable. What did the Robert's Commission say, again? And, perhaps "Dugout Doug" was just following orders - let Japanese strike first blow.
But then, also consider:
See Stimson's diary (Stimson Papers, Yale University), to paraphrase - let the Japanese fire the first shot [sic: needed to overcome Americans' sentiment not to have men killed in another foreign war], but hoping for not too much damage to ourselves.
Conspiracy theorists make a big deal about this passage but I fail to see anything sinister about it. There is nothing in Stimson's diary that indicates he knew there would be an attack at Pearl Harbor.
Goes to state of mind, your honor. Also see Minority Report, Stimson calls for chart showing locations of American, British, Dutch, Russian ... and Japanese vessels ... for morning of Dec. 7, 1941. That chart has never been found. Law of collective intent, your honor.
See "The Broken Seal" (paperback edition) in its Postscript - Japanese Striking Force was tracked and reported to US Navy prior to Decemeber 7, 1941. [SS Lurline report(s) now "missing" from Archives and FDR Library.]
Someone screwed up bigtime.
Yes, it is odd just how many Pearl Harbor documents are "missing" or not accessible. Very curious. Even Kimmel, in his preparation for defending himwelf was denied known files - "The White House" file.
Bottom line ... FDR and his War Cabinet knew - where, when, how, and why.
You have not addressed the obvious problems with the theory that FDR purposely allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor:
How could FDR have known that the base at Pearl Harbor would not be completely destroyed, thereby making impossible for the US to fight a war in the Pacific?
Simple answer - he could not. However, and again from the Stimson diary, the amount of damage to be absorded was discussed. I suspect FDR became a very frightened man, especially when Knox reported the true degree of destruction. The first press accounts did not reflect the level of losses - men, ships, material, ... etc. The cover-ups had already begun.
If the purpose of allowing the attack was to get us into a war with Germany, how could FDR have known for sure that Hitler would declare war on the US? It is true that Japan and Germany had a mutual defense treaty, but Hitler was famous for breaking treaties. How could he have known ahead of time that the attack would create an appetite among the American people for going to war with Germany?
Was it? Another possibly, help Stalin. Those Venona decrypts have some interesting materials. As to America's appetite - after Germany declared war - the choices were?
It is well documented, by Stinnet among others, that the US had tried to engage the Japanese navy through "pop-up" maneuvers (sneaking up on Japanese ships). If FDR was willing to try to start a war with the Japanese that way, why would he feel it necessary to let them attack Pearl Harbor? Why not engage the Japanese strike force before it got there?
The "pop-up" crusiers garnered only protests from the Japanese, as a violation of their territorial waters. No armed conflict resulted and Stark got very nervous. Oh, yes, FDR "really" loved the US Navy enough to sacrifice men and ships, didn't he?
Even the "information patrols" ordered specifically and directly by FDR of the Lanikai et. al., as bait did not work - but by then the US was "technically" at war with Japan - that "minor" ex parte Constitutional agreement FDR committed the US to - as Japanese forces crossed south of the "magic" line of the Isthmus of Kra. That is, prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. [Is this espisode even taught in American history classes today? Oh, I forgot, Pearl Harbor was a "sneak" attack - never mind.]
As to a Pacific Fleet sortie: (a) the Striking Force was told to withdraw if the Pacific Fleet was not at Pearl Harbor (recall the light signals in the Kita Messages), (b) by early December 1941 enough Japanese I-boats were lurking in Hawaiian waters to handle Kimmel's forces - in very deep water to boot, and (c) the six-to-two carrier advantage was a major plus for the Japanese. [See "You Me the Judge" by VADM David C. Richardson (USN, Retired), American Heritage Magazine, July 2001)
If the location of Japanese strike force was so well known, why was the navy unable to find it AFTER the attack? If the White House had that information, what would be the point of keeping it secret AFTER the attack?
Is this dis-information?
What is it that Rochefort reportedly says to Layton AFTER the Pearl Harbor attack? [See "And I Was There" by Layton, page 317]:
Layton - "How do you know it's Akagi?" Rochefort - "It's the same ham-fisted radio operator who uses his transmitting key as it he is kicking it with his foot."
Note a few things here:
(a) If it is the known "wrist" from the Akagi, what is he doing in Hawaiian waters - viz., from all the stories of "radio deception" how can this be? [See: radio fingerprinting - that is unique identification of the transmitters].
(b) Rochefort's comment means radio transmissions were picked up.
(c) The "wife's tale" about the 180-degree ambiguity in RDF (radio direction finding) bearings is BOGUS. The technique was developed circa early 1900's by several people (e.g., See Bellini and Tosi), basically using a loop antenna for the "nulls" and a "sense" antenna to resolve "ahead/behind" location of signal source. Also see Howeth, Appendix M for US Navy equipment in use at the time. And,
(d) Add RDF reports from this period to the Pearl Harbors materials still classified, partial, or mutilated.
And, of course the biggest problem is how could FDR have been sure that no one involved in such a large conspiracy (it would have had to involve a lot of people) would talk and create a result just the opposite of what FDR wanted? And why were there no deathbed confessions among the many people who would have had to have been involved?
Just how many people are you talking about? Recall that for thousands who knew of say Bletchley Park nothing was said until the British government approved the publication of books on Engima. How many people involved in denying the truth about the Lusitania's cargo ever spoke? Also, note, the British has never released any pre-Pearl Harbor Japanese material - Germany stuff is fine, Japanese is taboo.
Of course, as Barlett has in his "Cover-Up - The Politics of Pearl Harbor, 1941 - 1946" after the Japanese surrender would have been a good time to reveal the truth - that obviously did not happen. Politics or shame or both?
A real "red herring" this. Given the so-called "testimony" of say Stark, Marshall, Safford, ... the folklore of a deathbed confession is a reach for me. But then, Wilford does have material on Murton A. Seymour, OBE, QC and his sworn affidavit for posterity. Perhaps others will turn up over time.
Loyalty - blind loyalty - can be a dangerous thing. Recall, Marshall under oath, said his alliance to FDR was GREATER than that to the Constitution.
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.