barry BOWS AGAIN

[Turtle]

One piece of proof that we knew it was coming is that our carriers were all out on maneuvers, without escort. I find it stomach-turning that our servicemen were used as guinea pigs, and were given no chance to defend themselves. FDR should've been strung up for setting all those sailors up for slaughter.

Widely believed, but it's not really true. Two carriers, Enterprise and Lexington were out delivering additional war planes to Wake and Midway. The Enterprise was actually pre-scheduled to be back in port at Pearl on December 6th, according to the Quarterly Employment Schedule that was disseminated on August of that year (and the Lexington's original schedule was revised to match that of Enterprise), but a storm delayed the planned Saturday evening arrival. Because of the storm, the ETA was updated to 7AM Sunday morning, 55 minutes before the attack happened, but that even proved to be optimistic. They were, however, plenty close enough to Pearl at the time of the attack to have some of their own planes take off and join in the defense effort.

A brief overview of several of the points dispelling the myths:
Sacred Cows and Dead Horses - World War II Forums

The complete story of the attack as reported in the entire 23 volume, 40 part, 25,000 page report of the Hearings Before the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, Congress of the United States, Seventy-Ninth Congress:
Pearl Harbor Investigation Listing

A really gnarly conspiracy, especially if you're an FDR hater, is certainly more fun, tho.

[RLENT]

The complete story of the attack

Complete ? ...... really ?

Is that fully complete ? Or totally complete ?

Or just partially, not quite, complete ?

I mean, given that the government conducted yet another inquiry (there have been 10 so far) as recently as 1995 (the Thurmond-Spence Hearing), as a consequence of newly available material, do you think that we are now reeeeally finished, and that the subject can finally be laid to rest ?

Or do you think that if more material were to come available that it might require that the subject be revisited ? (say some of those 24,000 JN25 decrypts, particularly any obtained before December 7, 1941, maybe ?)

as reported in the entire 23 volume, 40 part, 25,000 page report of the Hearings Before the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, Congress of the United States, Seventy-Ninth Congress[B]:

Wow ..... WOW !!!

An official report ? ..... by Congress, no less !!! (say ... aren't those the very same folks who had their power to wage war usurped from them ?)

And 23 volumes ..... 40 parts ..... and 25,000 pages ..... simply voluminous !

Now I'm really impressed ..... especially after watching ten's (if not hundreds) of hours of 911 Commission Hearings and seeing what a farce that was .....

From the Stinnett interview:

Q: Your research seems to prove that government conspiracies can exist. In your view, how many people would you say ultimately knew that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor, but kept quiet about it and covered it up before and after the event?

Stinnett: I cite about thirty-five people there in the book that most certainly knew about it. And it’s probably more than that.

Q: It also seems like a classic Washington cover-up. In your book you use the phrase “Pearl Harbor deceits”. Ever since the attack there have been missing documents, altered documents, people being disingenuous, and people outright perjuring themselves before the Pearl Harbor investigation committees. Correct?

Stinnett: That is right. Absolutely. And you know the Department of Defense has labeled some of my Pearl Harbor requests as B1 National Defense Secrets, and they will not release them. I say that in the book. Janet Reno would not release them to me.

Q: And all the official Congressional Pearl Harbor committees were denied and weren’t privy to all this revealing information?

Stinnett: That’s right. They were cut out, also.

Q: A lot of people probably don’t want to believe that a president would let something like Pearl Harbor happen. Have you gotten any criticism for contending that FDR had a foreknowledge of the attack?

Stinnett: Yes. I get about a seventy percent approval rating. From, you know, comments, news media, radio, and all that. And there’s about thirty percent just don’t accept this....But the nitty-gritty questions are fine to me. You know, the people who are attacking me, what they are really quoting from is 1950 information. They don’t have the 1999 or 2000 information....

Q: The information you put out in your book. You’re talking about new things here.

Stinnett: That’s right. And this thirty percent, I feel they just don’t want to accept it, or they regard FDR as an icon who brought Social Security, and all that. But he also unified this country, and we were able to stop Hitler, you know, and the holocaust, and everything else that was going on. So, you could also say that this was a victory for President Roosevelt.

(It's important here to emphasize how Stinnett actually viewed this - his problem was not that it was done, but that it was concealed from the American public)

Q: Kimmel and Short were cut off from the intelligence loop.

Stinnett: They were cut off. And Congress, you know, last October, the Senate and the House, found that they were cut off. They made the finding. That would have never happened five years ago. Or ten, twenty years ago

Q: It happened because of the Freedom of Information Act?

Stinnett: I think so. And the Short and Kimmel families have credited my book with getting that through Congress.

Q: Did you ever read Clausen’s book? Colonel Henry Clausen was part of a Pearl Harbor investigation of November 1944. He wrote a book that was published in 1992 that claimed FDR didn’t have a foreknowledge of the attack.

Stinnett: Well, you know, I read that. But I fault Colonel Clausen because he had access to all of these military intercepts and he did not bring them out. And I think that was a crime for him to have done that. He should have been court-martialed for that.

Q: You infer in your book that at one point Clausen was probably trying to cover up for General Marshall’s actions of December 6 and 7.

Stinnett: I think so. You know, he was acting on the behalf of the Secretary of War. He had carte blanche with these intercepts.

Q: When was he acting on behalf of the Secretary of War?

Stinnett: Well, Clausen was authorized by Secretary of War Stimson to conduct the Pearl Harbor investigation in November 1944. He traveled to the Hawaiian monitoring stations and interviewed cryptographers but failed to obtain any evidence or testimony concerning the intercepts the Navy was making prior to December 7. So when Congress opened its Pearl Harbor investigation in November 1945 there were no pre-Pearl Harbor Japanese naval intercepts available. Clausen was told by Stimson to get the intercepts, but he didn’t do it.

(ahem ..... a truly great way to conduct an "official" investigation, no doubt .... )

Q: Did you ever talk with Clausen? Did he criticize you?

Stinnett: He died. I tried to contact him. He was an attorney in San Francisco, and I did write him but he would never answer me. I wanted to ask him why he didn’t obtain the intercepts. His book doesn’t address that major issue. He didn’t return my calls, and he never answered my letters. I guess he just didn’t want to be exposed to this. Clausen was obviously a part of the conspiracy that kept the pre-Pearl Harbor intercepts from Congress and the American public.

A really gnarly conspiracy, especially if you're an FDR hater, is certainly more fun, tho.

It's not really so much about hating Frankie, as much as it is about hating the actions of those in the political establishment (any political estabilishment - foreign or domestic) who would lie to and deceive those that they claim to represent. For it to happen in a country such as ours, espousing the ideals that it does, is perhaps the greatest tragedy of all ....

No .... wait a minute, actually the greatest tragedy is that it has become routine

[RLENT]

A statement of the problem (which, in essence, is political correctness, in the extreme):

Alexander Cοckburn - Things You Can't Say in America:
FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor

[Turtle]

Complete ? ...... really ?

Is that fully complete ? Or totally complete ?

Whether you agree with it or not, whether you even will accept it or not, it's the only complete record of under-oath evidence that exists. Everything else is speculation and conjecture unless and until it is proven.

Like, unreleased JN25 decrypts. They're unreleased, therefore, we can deduce what they contain. Uhm, OK.

An official report ? ..... by Congress, no less !!!

No. It's not an official report by Congress. It is a collection of Congressional hearings, as well as other reports, some having been declassified or obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. It's not something that should be so easily dismissed without reading it, that's for sure.

From the Stinnett interview:

Q: Your research seems to prove that government conspiracies can exist. In your view, how many people would you say ultimately knew that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor, but kept quiet about it and covered it up before and after the event?

Stinnett: I cite about thirty-five people there in the book that most certainly knew about it. And it’s probably more than that.

The only thing I know about government conspiracies is that two people couldn't keep a white stain on a blue dress from coming out in short order. I have even less faith in thirty-five, and probably more than that, being able to keep much of anything under wraps. Not even one person had a guilty conscious, wrote a book with explicit instructions that it not be published until after their death. That's impressive, possibly even moreso than the grand conspiracy itself.

It's not really so much about hating Frankie, as much as it is about hating the actions of those in the political establishment (any political estabilishment - foreign or domestic) who would lie to and deceive those that they claim to represent. For it to happen in a country such as ours, espousing the ideals that it does, is perhaps the greatest tragedy of all ....

Let's say it's all true. OK, now what?

Hidden assassins and witless patsies, shadowy cabals, secretive meetings in smoky rooms. The truth is out there...somewhere... it's just being kept from the public by secret societies out to control the world (or save it, take yer pick). Call it apophenia (humans' tendency to see patterns in random data), or call it realities far too awful for the rest of us mere mortal to acknowledge (or even be allowed to be aware of)... for whatever reason, conspiracy theories have been a part of the human culture since Cain suspected God and Abel had a racket going. The US government faked the moon landing with Hollywood sets and props, because they had to deflect attention away from the giant face on the moon. Jack the Ripper was the Freemasons. For that matter, the Freemasons secretly control the world's governments, they worship a divine entity known as the Great Architect of the Universe, and seek the world's destruction so it can be rebuilt more perfectly, they have long infiltrated all aspects of American society, from the layout of Washington, D.C., to the mysterious symbols on the dollar bill. It's true, I'm tellin' ya. You don't think FDR came up with that crap on his own do ya?

The Freemasons are engaged in a secret war with the Bilderberg Group, tho, and both are fighting the One-World Government of the United Nations, who is having a heck of a time beating back the Skull and Crossbones Society, who had the Kennedy's kill Marilyn Monroe while she vacationed at Area 51 with Jack Ruby. If only they knew The Vatican is the one who actually secretly rules the world. Paul is dead, BTW. He was killed in a tragic Yellow Submarine accident while reading the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion who's prophesy foretold that 911 was an inside job, which the Black Helicopters confirmed while they were also confirming the chemical sprays contained with the airplane contrails.

Oh, and Shaquille O'neal is a clean-shaven yeti.

I believe it all. Or none of it. Don't make much difference either way.

[chefdennis]

LOL....... Good night Gracie!! and you too Jack!!

[Tennesseahawk]

Turtle... you come across as you believe everything the government tells you. If that's the case, you're as blind as those who think everything is a conspiracy. To bring up freemasons in this discussion is really off the wall, by trying to discredit those who maybe believe this particular conspiracy. In that case, I would give you some government dribble... "The government is your friend. They will take care of you, and never lie to you. YOU are in their best interest." Keep believing THAT!

[Turtle]

It may appear that way, but I assure you that I believe very little of what the government tells me.

"To bring up freemasons in this discussion is really off the wall,..."

And bringing up Paul McCartney and Marilyn Monroe and Jack Ruby and The Face on the Moon wasn't off the wall? Or Shaquille O'neal? Well, duh, of course it was off the wall, just like the conspiracies within which they reside. It's just one of many examples of ludicrous conspiracy theories, and I listed a bunch of them in what I thought was a humorous fashion to make a point. Clearly, I was wrong.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of conspiracy theories are disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not all are, to be sure, as some are unprovable either way, and some are dead on the money accurate from the get-go. But a conspiracy theory is just that, a theory. A theory, any theory, gets tested by observation and experiment in order to find things that either support or disprove all or part of the theory. The problem with most conspiracy theorists is they are unwilling to accept that which doesn't support their theory, even if the data is irrefutable. Instead, they are forced to figure out a way to refute the irrefutable, or they simply dismiss it as being irrelevant or not import enough to consider. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is an awesome example of that.

"...by trying to discredit those who maybe believe this particular conspiracy."

I'm not trying to discredit anybody. At most all I am doing is telling people to look at things with an open mind rather than looking only at things that support their own predetermined beliefs.

In the case of the government setting up WWII and knowing about it, the irrefutable evidence which is incongruent with the theory doesn't dismiss all of the theory in its entirety, but it absolutely disproves some of it. If some of the theory is disproved, then that part of the theory must be removed and the theory must be revised. But that's not what a lot of people are willing to do. It doesn't fit their belief or agenda.

There are certainly some things the government lied about, and there are certainly some things the government did not lie about, either because they chose not to, or because the irrefutable evidence made it such that they couldn't. But the things that the government didn't lie about, you can't just dismiss it and label it as a lie anyway simply because the government had a hand in it in some way or another and/or because it doesn't fit neatly within the theory. When a part of a theory is proved to be false, then the rest of the theory must also be looked at as being suspect.

I think there is some validity to parts of the theory, but by no means am I going to buy into the whole thing, especially since so much of it had been disproved or is pure conjecture. A lot of the theory is really juicy, but it goes against human nature and doesn't even make sense. You know the saying, there are two sided to every story, and the truth usually lies somewhere in between. I think that's the case with this theory.

[Tennesseahawk]

I'll suggest a book... At Dawn We Slept by Gordon Prange. But to say the attack on PH, as Prange put it, was complete ignorance on the US's part is crazy. We did things to provoke Japan into war with us, including our oil embargo, and the plan to supply China with heavy bombers. Therefore, we KNEW they would come... it was just a matter of WHEN. Even in Prange's book, he states that we ignored the obvious, when it comes to the attack. Now whether that was intentional or not is a difference in opinion. But IMO, a country that is expecting an attack only ignores the obvious when they WANT to be attacked.

1) We knew an attack was coming from a year prior, according to broken codes, eavesdropping on the Japanese ambassador, and the fact that we were watching Japanese spies in Hawaii.

2) We provoked the Japanese into a war with us.

3) Our aircraft carriers were ALL out to sea when the attack happened.

I would say that's a justifiable conspiracy theory that, at the very least, shows the US was expecting, or even wanting to enter the war. At the most it says we knew when the attack would occur, and refused to tell the defending troops. Personally, I don't think something on that grand a scale, knowing what we knew, could've happened without a heads up... UNLESS those in charge CHOSE to be ignorant.

[Turtle]

1) We knew an attack was coming from a year prior, according to broken codes, eavesdropping on the Japanese ambassador, and the fact that we were watching Japanese spies in Hawaii.

Quite possibly, but not the details - we didn't know when.

2) We provoked the Japanese into a war with us.

Almost certainly, yes. Between the dissolution of the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan, and the enacting of the Export Control Act, and then freezing the assets of Japan in the US, add to that the oil embargo, it made Japan pretty mad.

3) Our aircraft carriers were ALL out to sea when the attack happened.

A couple of things. One, OK, they weren't in port, and were therefore out of harms way of the attack. What does that mean? Almost nothing, that's what. Even the most inept commander wouldn't send ALL of our carriers out to sea to protect them from an anticipated attack, while at the same time sacrificing 8 battleships, 8 cruisers, 30 destroyers, and 4 submarines, among many others (Ships Present at Pearl Harbor, 0800 7 December 1941 - us.navy.mil) by leaving them sitting there like ducks in a pond at port. As Stimson wrote in his diary, "The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves." Leaving that many ships in port was the opposite of "not allowing too much danger to ourselves."

Two, saying ALL of our carriers were out to sea is a little like Pravda saying that the US finished all the way down in next-to-last place, and the Soviet Union finished way up in second place, during a basketball tournament where the US beat the Soviets in the finals. (that was actually how it was reported by Pravda)

In December 1941 the entire Pacific Fleet consisted of three aircraft carriers. Three, count 'em, three. And you can count on one hand how many times all three of them were ever in the same port at the same time. On the other hand (or foot), you'd need more than just your fingers and toes to count how many times all three were not in port at the same time. So stating that all of our carriers were out at sea means little or nothing in terms of being tied somehow to advanced knowledge of the attack.

You said in a earlier post in this thread, "One piece of proof that we knew it was coming is that our carriers were all out on maneuvers, without escort."

That's fundamentally incorrect, on several levels. For one, it gives no proof whatsoever that we had advanced knowledge of the attack. This is especially true since the "without escort" is just flat out wrong. All three carriers of the Pacific Fleet were out of port with a normal escort accompaniment. A somewhat light escort for wartime, and possibly light for an impending outbreak of war, perhaps, but "without escort" is far from being even remotely close to accurate.

The carriers Yorktown (CV-5), Ranger (CV-4) and Wasp (CV-7) (along with the aircraft escort vessel Long Island (AVG-1)), were in the Atlantic Fleet, not the Pacific Fleet. The USS Hornet (CV-8), commissioned in late October 1941, had yet to carry out her shakedown cruise. Yorktown would be the first Atlantic Fleet carrier to be transferred to the Pacific, sailing on 16 December 1941.

On December 7, 1941 the Pacific Fleet consisted of three aircraft carriers; USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Lexington (CV-2), and USS Saratoga (CV-3).

Enterprise: On 28 November 1941, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel sent TF-8, consisting of Enterprise, the heavy cruisers Northampton (CA-26), Chester (CA-27), and Salt Lake City (CA-24) and nine destroyers under Vice Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., to ferry 12 Grumman F4F-3 Wildcats of Marine Fighting Squadron (VMF) 211 to Wake Island. Upon completion of the mission on 4 December, TF-8 set course to return to Pearl Harbor. Dawn on 7 December 1941 found TF-8 about 215 miles west of Oahu.

I'm not sure that I would categorize three heavy cruisers and nine destroyers as being "without escort" (unless I needed to do so to make it fit with my conspiracy theory, of course).

Lexington: On 5 December 1941, TF-12, formed around Lexington, under the command of Rear Admiral John H. Newton, sailed from Pearl to ferry 18 Vought SB2U-3 Vindicators of Marine Scout Bombing Squadron 231 to Midway Island. Dawn on 7 December 1941 found Lexington, heavy cruisers Chicago (CA-29), Portland (CA-33), and Astoria (CA-34), and five destroyers about 500 miles southeast of Midway. The outbreak of hostilities resulted in cancellation of the mission and VMSB-231 was retained on board [they would ultimately fly to Midway from Hickam Field on 21 December].

Wow, three heavy cruisers and only five destroyers. Of course, it's only five because TF-12 went to Midway, which is between Honolulu and Wake, and not all the way to Wake itself. Still, not really "without escort", tho.

Saratoga: The Saratoga, having recently completed an overhaul at the Puget Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton, Washington, reached NAS San Diego [North Island] late in the forenoon watch on 7 December. She was to embark her air group, as well as Marine Fighting Squadron (VMF) 221 and a cargo of miscellaneous airplanes to ferry to Pearl Harbor.

I'm pretty sure that Saratoga was under escort even from Puget Sound to San Diego.

Then again, one cannot be too sure. Stranger things have happened. In 1943 the Navy found itself in a situation where my dad, at 17 years old, was the only qualified helmsman on board an aircraft carrier in the South Pacific. Whoops.

I would say that's a justifiable conspiracy theory that, at the very least, shows the US was expecting, or even wanting to enter the war. At the most it says we knew when the attack would occur, and refused to tell the defending troops. Personally, I don't think something on that grand a scale, knowing what we knew, could've happened without a heads up... UNLESS those in charge CHOSE to be ignorant.

I agree that's it's a justifiable theory, at least some of it is. A lot of the theory can be, and has been, debunked beyond refutability. But a lot of it is dead on balls accurate, too. There's no question that FDR had a dislike for both Japan and Germany, a fondness for China, and was itching to get into the war in Europe. But this only happened after the New Deal kind of waned in 1937 and he turned to foreign policy matters to further his political ambitions, including getting elected for an unprecedented third term. Up until that time he paid very little attention to foreign matters. The American people and Congress wanted nothing to do with a war in Europe, but Germany and Japan were close allies, and logic dictated that the US involved in a war with Japan would also force Germany to pull the US into the war in Europe. An "unprovoked" attack by either Japan or Germany (the US was also poking a stick at Germany at the time, too), would solve a lot of problems.

But like I said, the real truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes of the US orchestrating it wholly, and in being caught totally by surprise. The fact that ALL (three) of our carriers were out of port on that day, with regard to bolstering the conspiracy theory, and all of the parts of the theory that hinge on that "fact", is so wrong, it stands to reason that other parts of the theory might also be wrong. And some of them are wrong. But some of them are right. The ones that are right do not make the ones that are wrong, right. There are two sides to every story, and what matters is not what you can conjure up, assume or invent, what matters is the facts.

But like I said earlier, what if the theory is 100% stone cold genuine true blue bona fide accurate? Now what?
I still need a load for tomorrow.

[layoutshooter]

Just keep one thing in mind when talking about reading code breaks. It is not like reading a newpaper.

The intercepts are often garbled in transmission, more so over long distances. The operator sending the information often makes mistakes as does the intercept operator.

To this very day a good code break nets you about one word in ten. It was no better than that in the WWII years.

The intelligence business is more like an art than a science. It takes years for an intelligence agent to get really good against a given target. That agent must start a working low level communications and work their way up to the higher levels. There is no substitute for experience, there is no spy degree in college. The intercept operator learns to know the hand of his target. That is, the way he/she sends their code. Little quirks, like holding a "dit" too long on a letter or number.

Our intelligence services in the pre-WWII days were still in their infancy, they were by no means as able at they are today.

There was no way you can ever predict an attack to an exact date, even today it cannot be done if that attack is being planned by an enemy with any kind of brains. It just is not as easy as in Hollywood.

Only once, in my entire 20 year career, did we even get close to doing that, within 3 days to be exact, that is when the Iranians attacked our Embassy in Terhan. It occurred 3 days after the date that was given to Carter. That information was not primarily derived from radio intercept, COMINT, or communications intelligence, like the information prior to the Dec 7 attack but from HUNINT, or human intelligence as it is known. In other words for you laymen out there, somebody snitched.

[layoutshooter]

If you want to get a fairly accurate picture of how a sucessful "COMINT" (communications intelligence) operation would be carried out, read the very brief history of the Battle of Midway that I post below. You can even watch the movie. As strange as it may seem that movie was quite accurate in it's depiction of that intell ops.

While my take on that operation is just slightly different than that history below it does give you a tiny insight into what was once the world that I lived and worked in.

The only point in this history that I take issue with is the "fact" that they "knew" the "exact" date of the attack. Having been able to read a copy of the "product" that they produced it read more like, "it is assumed that the attack on Midway will take place on or about". I don't remember the exact wording. I do know how I used to write it. Much as above.

Link to artical below.

Battle of Midway: 4-7 June 1942

Too long to post, you will have to go to the link to read.