FRANCE TO BE FASCIST STATE; LAVAL, WEYGAND IN POWER; WIDE AIR RAIDS ON GERMANY (7/9/40)

Microfiche-New York Times archives, Monterey Public Library | 7/9/40 | Hallett Abend, Hugh Byas

[BroJoeK]

"I think that the argument that Richardson’s argument with FDR was based only on the defenses at the facility is highly unlikely, and very biased when presented as a primary issue. "

A straw man. No one has done that.

The point is not that Richardson was more concerned about "x" or less concerned about "y".
Rather, the point is that Richardson was -- to whatever degree -- concerned about "inadequacies" in Pearl Harbor defenses, both against submarines and air attacks.
Richardson's successor, Kimmel, also expressed concern about Pearl's "vulnerability."

In Richardson's mind, these concerns turned what FDR considered a strong "deterrent" force against Japanese aggression into a weak "provocation" for Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

But remember, it is still 1940 and there is yet no concrete reason to expect attack, only concerns about possibilities.

And the point of it all is Roosevelt's response to Richardson's concerns: such an attack would be the big Japanese "mistake" which puts America into the war, said FDR.

So already in 1940, FDR is pondering just how big an attack -- and against which US targets -- it would take to put America at war.

And there is much more to this story, all in due time... ;-)

[CougarGA7]

Rather, the point is that Richardson was -- to whatever degree -- concerned about "inadequacies" in Pearl Harbor defenses, both against submarines and air attacks.

It's the "to whatever degree" that is important. His concern with Pearl's defenses are rather minor and really on the level that would be expected from a commander of a fleet. It is not a primary issue, and that's the point. The primary issue is the inability to place the fleet on a war footing due to the state of the facilities at Pearl Harbor (training, equipping, ect). The secondary concerns are cost and morale.

[BroJoeK]

"The primary issue is the inability to place the fleet on a war footing due to the state of the facilities at Pearl Harbor (training, equipping, ect)."

No disagreement here.
In their October 1940 meeting, Richardson advised FDR that his Pacific Fleet was too weak to be an effective deterrent, and the Japanese knew it.

He then asked if FDR intended to go to war with Japan, to which Roosevelt replied: that depends on where the Japanese attack.

There was then no evidence of an imminent Japanese attack, but the possibilities would naturally concern any military leaders.

But in Roosevelt's mind, some such attack was absolutely necessary to put America at war.

That's the only point I'm trying to make, for now. ;-)

[CougarGA7]

Then I can agree with you up to this point then. As we move forward I think we will both agree that FDR knew that he needed an overt attack from either Japan or Germany as well to get the isolationists on his side. I think the stickler will come when he try to determine if he knew about the Pearl attack.

Certainly Richardson would have to have somewhere in his mind the defense of his fleet at Pearl even at this time. The degree of worry I think is what is in question, and I’d be willing to bet that it will increase as events unfold elsewhere so I will be sure to keep this in mind as we evaluate this moving forward.

An interesting aside from research I was doing to back my claim that at this time the defenses at Pearl were relatively low on Richardson’s list compared to other issues:

At this point in time (July 1940), Pearl Harbor is the 3rd best fortified American defensive position in the Pacific. I expected this to a degree but was shocked to find that only 2 of the 6 main West Coast bases were better defended. (Though I have to admit that I can only find data on shore batteries for use against ships and fixed AA positions, I can’t find anything (yet) on how each facility is set with ASW equipment or smaller mobile AA units). The bases at San Francisco, and Puget Sound have better, and more of everything than Pearl, but San Diego, Los Angeles, Columbia, and Gray’s Harbor (which I almost shouldn’t count since it is so small) are not as well defended.

Another thing I found concerning was just how poorly defended Panama is. I cannot find a single (not one) anti-aircraft installation at that base. I have found 90mm anti-aircraft batteries (8 in total) that will go online in 1943, but right now there is zip.

One final tidbit. When looking at this I kept running across the the 3” AA gun as the standard anti-aircraft artillery piece (these date back to WWI). Turns out the 90mm AA unit only got approved by the Army last March (1940). The first of these come online in 1942 in small amounts and don’t really take hold until 1943. So from an overall defensive proposition, I would say we are currently behind on anti-aircraft technology in general.

[BroJoeK]

"So from an overall defensive proposition, I would say we are currently behind on anti-aircraft technology in general."

Many these days say the US is unprepared for another "Big One" type war. They forget how much more unprepared we still were in 1940.

Indeed, to give Pat Buchanan his due, he correctly points out that, all things considered, our pre-war isolationists did the country a genuine service by keeping us out of a war we were as yet in no way prepared to fight.