Pearl Harbor, an exercise in ignorance?

The best and most modern ships, including the all-important carriers, slipped out Pearl Harbor before the attack. The WW1 battle ships left behind could easily be sacrificed; their day was over. Work was under way stateside on a hundred carriers of various categories. I don't think you know how divided the country was over getting involved with another European war. An American destroyer had been sunk in the North Atlantic and another damaged and the country just shrugged it off. FDR knew only a serious attack with serious losses would heal the divisions. All military services have officers who climb the ladder of rank because they learn how to dance to the tune of their civilian masters. As for Admiral Tom Thumb Phillips, there was no air protection for his two ships because none was available. The Admiralty knew it was taking a risk, but didn't realize how large.

 

Yes, they were off on missions to reinforce Wake and Midway Islands, as ordered by CinCPac, Admiral Kimmel and long before the Japanese were in striking range of Oahu. Please do try to keep your timelines straight and try to paint a complete picture rather than a half truth ventured as some nefarious plot. And guess what . . . if Kimmel sending out his carriers on reinforcement mission was some piece of the conspiracy, then that would mean Kimmel was in on it all along . . . no, wait . . . the conspiracy theory has Kimmel in the dark . . . oh, crap! you can't have it both ways.

The decisions to leave the battleships at Pearl Harbor was (note there were two such decisions) were made by the carrier task force commanders. You may wish to note that a Lexington class carrier could make about 34 knots flat out, as one might do in a combat situation, and a Yorktown class carrier, such as Enterprise, could make about 30 knots. None of the battleships at Pearl Harbor could make much more than 23 knots. You do the math if you are able, Admirals Halsey and Brown certainly could.

Suggest you look at just which carriers were authorized for construction and when. Another of your veiled half truths. Smoke and mirrors.

No, I don't think you know how divided the county was or, more accurately, was not. Have you ever seen any of the polling data? Go ahead, look for Gallup Polls in the fall of 1941. But, I caution you, be prepared for some disappointing disruption of one of you pet theories. Have you ever done any real historical research or do you confine yourself to PHC sites? Bring us back your analyses of the Gallup Polls of the day to support your contention . . . good luck with that.

When in doubt, slander and smear, right? Why don't you be specific . . . show us; any and all correspondence, meeting notes or other documentation in which FDR plans for a war to "heal the divisions" in which you seem to believe (remember the polling data . . . time for you to look again).

And which officers are dancing to what tune. You are certainly not advocating the abolition of civilian control of the military and naval forces as called for and stipulated in the US constitution and public laws are you? Why was that not one of those things the war was all about? Are you saying there should have been some sort of mutiny ?

And these officers, just to whom are you referring? Name names, what did they do or fail to do? And whose orders, and more importantly exactly what were the orders, were they obeying which resulted in the successful attack on Pearl Harbor? Spell it out . . . if you are going to make an accusation, make it, don't weasel around . . . or is that just your fiction writing practice . . . or is it you don't need to deal in facts because you only deal in fiction.

You are, as most of the PHC ilk tend to do, presenting vague attacks on a lot of dead people with innuendo and unsupportable accusations and with absolutely no proof whatsoever, none, zip, zero, nada. I won't be surprised when you return empty handed. What really surprises me is the unstated and uncomfortable thought that you, and rest the PHC ilk apparently, are of the belief that the Japanese in 1941 were incapable of conducting the operation which they did with out collusion from the highest levels of the US government . . . strikes me as a rather bigoted and racist attitude.

Once again, I suggest you do some real research . . . typically you blare forth with vague half-truths. Go do the research and come back and tell us all about the loss of Force Z in every little detail and see how that compares to your broad, but not very accurate, brush above.

 

That Germany would declare war on the U.S. after the attack by Japan was as certain as the day follows the night. How you do not understand that is astonishing. The Tripartite Treaty:
ARTICLE 1. Japan recognizes and respects the leadership of Germany and Italy in the establishment of a new order in Europe.
ARTICLE 2. Germany and Italy recognize and respect the leadership of Japan in the establishment of a new order in Greater East Asia.
ARTICLE 3. Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.
ARTICLE 4. With a view to implementing the present pact, joint technical commissions, to be appointed by the respective Governments of Japan, Germany and Italy, will meet without delay.
ARTICLE 5. Japan, Germany and Italy affirm that the above agreement affects in no way the political status existing at present between each of the three Contracting Powers and Soviet Russia.
ARTICLE 6. The present pact shall become valid immediately upon signature and shall remain in force ten years from the date on which it becomes effective. In due time, before the expiration of said term, the High Contracting Parties shall, at the request of any one of them, enter into negotiations for its renewal.
The German navy was already waging an undeclared war on the U.S., as seen by the sinking of the Rueben James and the attack on another American war ship mere weeks before Pearl Harbor.
In a diplomatic cable to Berlin days before Pearl Harbor that was intercepted, decoded and translated, the Japanese ambassador was told to inform the Nazis that war would begin soon and without warning. The "without warning" bit, by the way, was leaked to Joseph Grew in April of 1941 by a South American diplomat and was passed on to Washington. And the U.S. Navy was well aware of Port Arthur.

 

Suggest you get out your English dictionary, in case you need it, and read Article 3 very slowly and carefully. The Japanese did the attacking. Germany was under no obligation whatsoever to declare war on the US. The fact Hitler got stupid is one thing, but he was not required to do so.

You're not doing so hot.

 

That broadcast was intercepted at Station H of the Mid-Pacific Radio Intelligence Network in Hawaii. This is not to be confused with Station HYPO on the same island which was the combat intelligence center for the Pacific Fleet. HYPO processed and decoded Japanese radio transmissions intercepted by Station H. In a second dispatch on November 26 Yamamoto wrote:

THE TASK FORCE, KEEPING ITS MOVEMENT SECRET AND MAINTAINING RADIO SILENCE AND MAINTAINING CLOSE GUARD AGAINST SUBMARINES AND AIRCRAFT, SHALL ADVANCE INTO HAWAIIAN WATERS, AND UPON THE OPENING OF HOSTILITIES SHALL ATTACK THE MAIN FORCE OF TE UNITED STATES FLEET IN HAWAII AND DEAL IT A MORTAL BLOW. THE FIRST AIR RAID IS PLANNED FOR THE DAWN OF X DAY. EXACT DATE TO BE GIVEN BY LATER ORDER.
UPON COMPLETION OF THE AIR RAID, THE TASK FORCE, KEEPING CLOSE COORDINATION AND GUARDING AGAINST THE ENEMY'S COUNTERATTACK, SHALL SPEEDILY LEAVE THE ENEMY WATERS AND RETURN TO JAPAN.
SHOULD THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES PROVE SUCCESSFUL, THE TASK FORCE SHALL HOLD ITSELF IN READINESS FORTHWITH TO RETURN AND REASSEMBLE.

Records Stinnett found from Station H records and Japanese sources that Yamamoto used the radio call RO-SE 22 to dispatch 13 orders between November 24 and 26. All were missing from the file of intercepted messages released on the order of President Carter in 1979. They are among many thousands of documents that remain classified from that time. We only have to look at the present administration and the one before to see how lying can be justified as a policy when an ends-justifies-the-means philosophy is in the saddle. British and Dutch intelligence also intercepted ship movement messages as Yamamoto's fleet gathered at Hitokappu Bay, the sortie point for the attack. There was close cooperation between the three naval services. A Dutch naval officer was shown the plot of the Imperial Japanese Fleet en route to Hawaii on a visit December 3 to the Naval Building in Washington, D.C. (Hitokappu was in plain language rather than code because it was a last-minute choice.)

On December 11, four days after the attack, Rear Admiral Leigh Noyes, the Navy's director of communications, issued an order to destroy all notes and anything in writing concerning intercepts of Japanese naval and diplomatic radio traffic leading up to Pearl Harbor. That order was issued just before the board of inquiry headed by Justice Roberts was formed to whitewash the whole affair. Noyes later explained that he meant only personal records Navy personnel might have on the subject.
As for Stinnett entering into senile decay, the man is alive and well and is a fellow at an institute I encourage you to look up. Note to R. Leonard: because of your abusive and uncivil manner, I will not be replying to any more of your posts.

 

Unless you drop your snideness, you will fall under the same ban as Leonard.

 

Adios.

 

Ah, Banjo, is that wise? That when confronted by multiple, well-reasoned refutations you have the ostrich like ability to ignore the opposition? Oh, for the record, am I also on the ignore list or will you still communicate with me?

 

Ban? What ban is that? Did I miss something? My dear Banjo, are you laboring under still another delusion? Oh, I see, YOU, in all your authority (hee, hee, small pun) are banning me . . . I guess you apparently don't handle the truth very well do you?

Speaking of delusions . . . and lest I forget . . . you have now demonstrated a less than secure grasp of the terminology, so insecure that you have allowed your friend Stinnett to lead you very badly astray. Station H was Station HYPO. Hypo is the phonetic alphabet pro-word for the letter H . . . in this case referring to the station at Hawaii. Stinnett saying otherwise is simply another of his distracting untruths. Observe . . . Hawaii = H = Hypo, just as in the Philippines, Cavite (later Corregidor) = C = Cast. All following the form Affirm, Baker, Cast, Dog, Easy, Fox, George, Hypo, Int, Jig, and so on; it helps to speak the language of the times. Stinnett fostering an untruth does not make it so. Let us be clear, there was no mysterious "Station H" is was all Station Hypo. You really should get out more. Also, there was no such message intercepted and decoded by anyone in Hawaii, or anywhere else, before the attack on Pearl Harbor. I really hate to disappoint you, but the operational instructions sent to the Kido Butai whilst still parked at its anchorages at Hittokapu Bay was sent via telegraph; it was not sent out over the airwaves. You should avoid basing your factoids on a single author, especially one whose presentation has been thoroughly debunked. If you bothered to read anything else other than Stinnett and his ilk you would have known that in all of 1941 (and last I checked November and December 1941 were actually in 1941 your world might be different) the USN code breakers reported reading exactly zero, that is, none, zip, nada, JN-25 messages in that calendar year. That's right, none. Care to explain?

 

And since you won't respond to my posts, I guess that gives me free rein, eh? Well then, no, no, no, dear Banjo, you don’t get off that easy. You can call me whatever you want, I don’t care, you can call me banned, I don't care. You do realize, do you not that hiding behind an apparent aversion to hard questions on positions and statements you have made of your own volition, declaring a refusal to respond does nothing for your credibility, do you not?

Let me recap . . .you have presented yourself as the writer of a novel, a work of fiction. You come here, to a history interest forum, to hawk your wares (in two different places one might note) and then attempt to convince one and all that the premise of your fiction is, indeed, factually based. And then feel put upon when challenged. Is that accurate?

But I ask you, is it too much to ask that you substantiate your allegations?

The simple facts are that you want to accuse the great amorphous “they” of high crimes and misdemeanors, if not treason, of participating in some grand conspiracy by which the highest levels of the US government and military establishment colluded somehow with the Japanese (who, evidently by extension, then, were incompetent at carrying out the task on their own) in their attack on Pearl Harbor.

Is it so much to ask just who “They” were? Certainly if you are so insistent in making the accusations then you know who “They” were.

Is it so much to ask just how “They” so colluded? Certainly if you make the accusation then you know just what each and every “They” did to further the collusion.

And exactly what evidence are you offering? Certainly if you are making these claims then there is evidence, is there not?

So . . . let me spell it out for you . . .

Your accusations, your responsibility to present the evidence . . . here’s some pretty straight forward questions:

Who in the US Government or Military or Naval establishments knew exactly what information on the Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor . . . be specific now, be sure to name names, and provide that portion, portions, or whole of the Japanese plan to which they were privy?

When did your “They” (and by now you should have their names) in the US Government or Military or Naval establishments know whatever portion, portions or whole of the Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor? Please establish a timeline showing individuals, information received, and dates.

How did these individuals come by this information? Was anyone involved other than the Japanese? Who? When? How did these intermediaries come by the information? Did they tell anyone else? Why not? What happened to them?

Who did what with this information, be they intermediaries or principals, with this information, this spelling out of the Japanese plans? Did they indulge in their nefarious activities individually, that is, alone, or were they meeting somewhere and hammering out a plan of action?

I can come up with a lot more questions, but these will do well for starts. Requires some specificity on your part, something well beyond veiled accusations, half truths, and oft repeated conspiracy out-right lies. One would think that in the interest of enlightenment you would want to pursue answers. But in the meantime, you are making the claims, so you get to prove them. Assuredly, an unwillingness on your part to provide answers to legitimate questions means you otherwise are simply just another Pearl Harbor Conspiracy nut-job. If the shoe fits, wear it. I’ve done my homework, time for you to do yours, because I won’t do it for you. I am not a writer of novels, I am an operations analyst by trade, got the masters’ to go along with it, and I deal in facts and statistics. Yet, my bachelors’, those long years ago, was in history, so I am quite familiar with the requirements for academic research . . . substantiation of one’s presentation is required in order to be credible.

The things to remember are quite simple . . . facts are facts, theory is theory. “Would have’s,” “could have’s,” and “should have’s” are all trumped by “did’s” and “did not’s.” All are governed by the actual time line of events in the historical record, not by some imaginary event. You paint historical figures with a broad brush of participating in some conspiracy . . . attempting to weave tenuous threads, indeed, not much more than ethereal spiders webs, into some sort of whole cloth without any presentation of actual facts which would ground your claims. You make bald statements about the historical events which do not appear in any record I have ever seen . . . is it too much to ask for specific details? For example, you wrote just last Sunday (the 22nd):

Love the last sentence by the way . . . Exactly when did he send out these forces in search of the Japanese? Halsey & company were a little busy, otherwise occupied if you will, for a couple of weeks leading up to December 7th and heading off in another direction altogether . . . But, really, a court martial? Really?

And just who threatened Kimmel with a court martial? It could have been but one of the only two officers in the USN senior to him (I know who they were, do you?) So, which one threatened Kimmel with a court martial and exactly when did he do so? What exactly did this person say or write? Where is the record of this threat - I would greatly enjoy reading same if only you could so provide it. How was this threat communicated? [and don't say "telephone" because that will open up a whole another can of worms where it will be quickly obvious you have no clue].

And, pray tell, exactly what would be the charge? Why did Kimmel never, not once, go on the record with this threat . . . certainly it would have gone a long way in justifying his actions or lack thereof. Determining the charge, of course, might require that you search out the regulations regarding the governing of the service (let me help you, the regulations in force were the 1930 edition of “Articles for the Government of the United States Navy”) and tell us which article applies. And if you’re going to claim that Kimmel was violating an order from his superiors, it would be nice if you could produce that order, and remember that the caveat in those clauses which the uninitiated might cite relating to disobeying orders includes the key word “lawful,” for which subparagraphs in articles provide not just a little guidance. If you are not familiar and understanding of these concepts, then you should not speak to them. If you don't know how the whole military justice system worked in the pre-UCMJ days, then you should not idly toss about claims of court martial threats.

I happily await your response, though in fading hopes of anything answering some pretty basic questions as to your evidence to all that you claim.

 

Thanks for the chart

Of course, there's also the small matter of despite Banjo's assertion, Yamamoto was no where near the Kido Butai at launch time on Sunday 7 December 1941, he was back a Kure.

And, as long as I'm being overly picky, "seamount" what seamount? I'd hate to have to drag out one of my charts, but I'm pretty sure the Kido Butai was far enough north of the Hawaiian archipelago not to be concerned with, care nor even be aware of such things. They certainly weren't looking for landmarks . . . maybe, dare I hope, that since he mentioned it, Banjo already has a chart at the ready.

 

well, what do you know, about 480 clicks, roughly north-northwest of Oahu and at about 1500 feet down lies the Prokof'yev Seamount. Okay, Banjo, I grant you that the Kido Butai was within, oh, say, a 100 mile radius of Prokof-'yev a one point or another . . . I'd still like to see some evidence of Kimmel being threatened by someone senior to him with a court martial and some reasonable explanation as to why Kimmel never mentions same. Exactly what was the chain of events? Who did/said what? When?

Also, just some friendly advice, you should try to write a little clearer . . . as a writer/journalist you should know that bad phrasing leads to misunderstandings. I got the gist of your thought, but a neophyte, taking a literal interpretation from your phrasing, might draw the conclusion that the Japanese were launching their planes from the seamount itself . . . kind of hard to do from 1500 feet under the water as I am sure you know.

 

Banjo still declines to expand on his accusations, ah well.

Of course, one has to ask why a naval commander, be he USN or IJN, would consider an undersea mount as some sort of navigational waypoint; a sea mount is not something an observer on the surface of the ocean can sea. Stinnett for some reason likes to use sea mounts as some sort of reference points, something I always wondered about. When he speaks of ‘vacant seas’ he references between this or that sea mount . . . but who can see these things . . . no one can see them . . . they are under water, lots of water. Certainly through the course of millennia islands are formed, in the Pacific, usually through volcanic action along tectonic plates, moving hot spots, if you will, that gradually migrate their way across the ocean. The island of Hawaii is a nice example; it is large and has active volcanoes. Off the south east coast of Hawaii is an active undersea volcano which, in all probability, will someday form a new island, but probably not in the lifetime of anyone reading this nor even of their grandchildren. Near the far northwest end of the Hawaiian archipelago we find Midway Island, now an atoll, that was once a full fledged island such as one might find on the southeast end, but that with the passage of time has eroded to it is present state. Farther out are simple reefs and shoals, such as Kure, Pearl, or Hermes Reefs, eroded still farther than has Midway, eventually they will disappear altogether and in the fullness of time become sea mount which no one can see.

I go through that long dissertation to raise the point that no competent naval authority would issue an order for a naval force to go out to, oh, say, the Prokof’yev Seamount and conduct search operations. Maybe, one might order a task force to go out an area centered on 25° 51’N, 157°53’W, for example, as a center of operations . . . or proceed to the same latitude/longitude and conduct flight operations, but, no, no one would be sent to a far beneath the waves, not even visible, named seamount as an operational center. One might look to the CinCPac Operations Order 29-42 published on 27 May 1942, for the Midway action which clearly defines adjacent areas of operations in which Task Forces SIXTEEN and SEVENTEEN were to operate (north of 32° N; west of 173°W and north of 32° N; east of 173°W, respectively, with a daily forenoon meeting point for exchange communications centered on 32° N, 173°W as was spelled out in the order’s Appendix 2).

This example of how these things are spelled out for operational purposes raises the question as to why Stinnett uses these essentially invisible seamount features as reference points in his presentation. It is not as though the casual reader has ready access to the locations of seamounts in the Pacific Ocean. In my mind, it is because he either trying to obscure with irrelevance, dazzle the reader with apparent erudition or he simply has not a clue as to his subject matter, or, most likely, all three.

Interestingly, the earliest reference I can find to the Prokof’yev Seamount is 1964 (others are free to chime in here) . . . kind of raises the question – especially since the entire concept of plate tectonics and hot spots as accepted science is pretty much a post-war development – as to whether the USN or the IJN were even aware of the existence of said mount. And since Stinnett likes to bring up the Prokof’yev Seamount in his various, ummmmm, maunderings, it makes at least this reader seriously question his competence to comment on matters of nautical/naval navigation, specifically, and naval operations, generally.

 

By the way, with all the hullaballoo regarding this mysterious Exercise 191, I’ve read the operations order (CinPac Operation Order No 31-41), for this, a typical USN BLACK FORCE versus WHITE FORCE exercise. No where in the order does the word, or any variations thereof, Prokof’yev appear; no where in the order does the latitude and longitude for the Prokof’yev sea mount (see above post) appear. Further, this was a training exercise, not as has been described by one poster, as an operational search.

Well, what do you know, who would have ever thought.

The premise for the operation, to be conducted between 0600, 21 Nov 1941 and 0600 25 Nov 1941, reads (as from CinCPac Operation Order No 37-41, Annex A, issued 5 Nov 1941) as below. Having written more than a couple of exercise OpOrds myself, the wording I see herein is all pretty standard for a make believe situation:

Sure doesn’t sound like a loaded for bear combat operation to me. Just a very straight forward training exercise . . . makes me wonder why some wish to paint it otherwise.

 

Cage masts & tripods vs pagodas . . . its real easy to tell them apart

 

Arrrr, I think you've for certes nailed that one to the mast, me hearty! Excellent shooting!

 

Please be aware that BANJO (no longer here) was apparently writing regarding a work of FICTION which he mistook as fact. Yes, the scenario he describes doe seem to fly in the face of logic, but that fits in with the American right-wing attempt to re-write history byblurring the line with fiction.

Again: its fiction.