Re: OFF TOPIC History's might-have-been's - Pacific war almost averted
Akira Kawasaki wrote: >Military documents obtained through "Freedom of Information Act" invoked by >Stinnet shows that United States >had broken both diplomatic and military codes used by Japan by 1939-1940. That was not released from the F.O.I.A. It was common knowledge decades before that act was passed. It was described in books published in the 1960s. > Roosevelt knew every move Japan was making. > He knew that their navy was on the way. No, he did not. First, they never broadcast their intentions in any code -- no navy does. Second, the I.J.N. code was not "broken" completely. Note that it was a code, with thousands of random numbers substituting for words, and there were several different versions. whereas the diplomatic "code" was a cypher. When you crack a cypher, you can read the entire message. In 1941 and 1942, U.S. intelligence could read 10 or 15% of the I.J.N. codes, but every time the code books changed (such as just before Midway) they were back to square zero. Most of their analysis was based on frequency, direction, identifying operators, and cracking some key words. (Later in the war, they used IBM punch card equipment to read more.) > There was no radio silence as asserted. There was radio silence before Pearl Harbor! The radios were mechanically disabled to prevent an accidental transmission. The regular operators were back in Tokyo sending fake messages or none at all. The U.S. listeners could identify the individual operators by their touch, and they know which operator was assigned to which ship, so they had every reason to think the fleet was at home. > Pearl Harbor was not a surprise . . . It was the biggest surprise in U.S. military history. > It is also safe to assume that United States knew about Japan scrambling to > come to surrender negotiations > through then neutral Russia much prior to dropping of the Atomic Bomb. Sure they did. Heck, Time magazine published articles about it. There was a huge debate in the U.S. for a month as to whether to accept a surrender with only the Emperor's role preserved. The Japanese also sent messages via Russia and neutral third parties. The Japanese tried to keep the negotiations secret, but the U.S. broadcast the exchanges, printed millions of copies of the letters and air dropped them on Japan. It stirred up a hornet's nest of opposition from the hard-core militarists. - Jed
Re: OFF TOPIC History's might-have-been's - Pacific war almost averted
Akira Kawasaki wrote: Nov. 22, 2005 Vortex, Military documents obtained through "Freedom of Information Act" invoked by Stinnet shows that United States had broken both diplomatic and military codes used by Japan by 1939-1940. Roosevelt knew every move Japan was making. He knew that their navy was on the way. There was no radio silence as asserted. "God Bless" the Army and Navy code breakers. Pearl Harbor was not a surprise, the Midway tactic was known, and Yamamoto was later killed by knowing his inspection route. The sad thing on Japan's side was that they never caught on that their codes were broken. Like Germany The German high command was so convinced of German intellectual superiority that they refused to consider the possibility that anyone could have broken their unbreakable code. It is also safe to assume that United States knew about Japan scrambling to come to surrender negotiations through then neutral Russia much prior to dropping of the Atomic Bomb. It was Truman, not Roosevelt, who decided to go through with that. We shouldn't blame Eisenhower, either, who later said something to the effect of, "They didn't have to use that thing!" FWIW I was taught in school that Japan had indeed offered a conditional surrender before the second bomb fell, but Truman would not settle for any such offer, he wanted the surrender to be unconditional, dictated and not negotiated. After the second bomb he got his "unconditional" surrender. Those commanders caught by surprise at Pearl were kept out of the crucial information loop. MacAurthur was not one of those. He just didn't get enough supplies in time. You see, Europe was the priority. By the way, Stinnet's book is "Day of Deceit, The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor". So, if it's true, why _did_ FDR _not_ send the fleet to sea? Is there any kind of conclusive answer to that question? -ak-
Re: OFF TOPIC History's might-have-been's - Pacific war almost averted
Nov. 22, 2005 Vortex, Military documents obtained through "Freedom of Information Act" invoked by Stinnet shows that United States had broken both diplomatic and military codes used by Japan by 1939-1940. Roosevelt knew every move Japan was making. He knew that their navy was on the way. There was no radio silence as asserted. "God Bless" the Army and Navy code breakers. Pearl Harbor was not a surprise, the Midway tactic was known, and Yamamoto was later killed by knowing his inspection route. The sad thing on Japan's side was that they never caught on that their codes were broken. It is also safe to assume that United States knew about Japan scrambling to come to surrender negotiations through then neutral Russia much prior to dropping of the Atomic Bomb. Those commanders caught by surprise at Pearl were kept out of the crucial information loop. MacAurthur was not one of those. He just didn't get enough supplies in time. You see, Europe was the priority. By the way, Stinnet's book is "Day of Deceit, The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor". -ak- - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: 11/22/2005 11:27:58 PM Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC History's might-have-been's - Pacific war almost averted Speaking of "History's might-have-been's" during this period - how many realize how "fortunate: (i.e. downright lucky) we were at Midway? This "failed-trap", and our good-fortune, plus a rare Yamamoto slip-up - essentially lost the war for Japan during this one battle. We might have succeeded anyway, at far greater cost, but for this battle, as they definitely had the upper hand in maritime strength prior. Jones BTW my stepfather was on the ill-fated Yorktown (both the first and second versions), and surviving that sinking (by torpedo) required its own bit of luck.
Re: OFF TOPIC History's might-have-been's - Pacific war almost averted
Speaking of "History's might-have-been's" during this period - how many realize how "fortunate: (i.e. downright lucky) we were at Midway? This "failed-trap", and our good-fortune, plus a rare Yamamoto slip-up - essentially lost the war for Japan during this one battle. We might have succeeded anyway, at far greater cost, but for this battle, as they definitely had the upper hand in maritime strength prior. Jones BTW my stepfather was on the ill-fated Yorktown (both the first and second versions), and surviving that sinking (by torpedo) required its own bit of luck.
OFF TOPIC History's might-have-been's - Pacific war almost averted
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: And he knew how to negotiate, and he knew the value of maintaining foreign contacts; in short he knew that Americans aren't the only people on Earth. Maybe there would have been no 9/11 if Roosevelt had been Pres. He was good at negotiation. So good, I think he almost averted war with Japan, although he himself did not realize it at the time. One of the reasons Japan attacked in 1941 was because they thought Russia would soon lose the war and be taken over by Germany. Japan feared the Soviet Union more than they feared the US, but they thought it would soon be defunct. There were sane people in Japan who understood that war with the US would be a disaster. Especially Yamamoto, the head of the Navy, They were trying to stop the confrontation. They almost succeeded in delaying the attack on Pearl Harbor. If they had delayed, the attack could not have gone forward until March or April 1942, and by that time the Japanese government would have realized that Russia was not going to lose to Germany, and the European balance of power would not change. They also might have realized that some of their own hard-line diplomats were lying about the US position. In secret memos within the Japanese government, the hard-liners misrepresented the US negotiating position. They claimed the US was trying to push them out of all their Asian colonies, including China, Manchuria, Taiwan and Korea. That was not true. The US negotiators only wanted a settlement in China; they never made any demands about the other colonies. By March 1942, cooler heads might have prevailed, an accurate translation of the US negotiating position might have reached the prime minister, and war might have been averted. That would have been good . . . except that in that scenario the US would never have gone to war in Europe; England alone would never have invaded the continent; and the Nazis would still be running things in Western Europe. - Jed
