Historical Perspective: Intelligence and the 1944 Election [Title Not in Original]

U.S.S. Clueless ^ | 11/5/03 | Den Beste

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Next take a look at Livy, Tacitus and Juvenal. Roman behavior in their time was rather similar to today's behavior.

[jamaksin]

Agreed!

Also Marcus Aurelius is another good example.

But the examples are many ... Curtius & Arrian (on Alexander the Great), Thucydides (that Peloponnesian thing and he "was there"), Polybius, ..., etc.

Thank you again.

[LS]

There is no "be helpful." How about you BE HONEST. You are still mincing words "I cannot help but agree." It's crap. State what you think, plainly. ANSWER THE QUESTION:

were the WW II codebreakers traitors? Did they assist in a coverup? This is a yes or no answer, and don't bother responding again unless you plan to give a yes or no answer.

[jamaksin]

Larry,

Hello and a very good morning to you.

As you appear parviscient here, perhaps, Safford - as in Laurence (1893-1973) seems to have had something to do with OP-20-G (that's jargon for stuff: OP from OPNAV [Office of the Chief of Naval Operation], 20 is the 20th division of OPNAV, and G is for Communications Security Section; OP-20-G was also called Station Negat at one time).

Now I could be mistaken here ... but that is the Safford whose letter is quoted in posting #44 this thread ...

So, how can I argue with Safford? I cannot ... so, Larry, what Safford said.

Now, ... please, the AKAGI materials would be very helpful. So, please, please ... would you not neglect that further. Please ... be a good chap here, your helpfulness would be much appreciated by all.

Thank you in advance.

[LS]

Mr. Duck and Dodge, let's not put things in what "Safford said." State what YOU THINK. It's a yes or no answer: only answer yes or no, then we can move on:

Were the WW II codebreakers traitors?

The more crap you type, especially about the Akagi, the longer this goes on. All that's required is a one-word post.

YES OR NO---WERE THEY TRAITORS?

Don't hide behind Safford.

[jamaksin]

Larry,

What Safford says in his letter (cited earlier) ... I cannot argue.

Please excuse my nimiety here everyone - but that AKAGI material remains open. Larry, could you please be ever so helpful with that?

Much appreciated and, yes, thank you.

[LS]

If you "cannot argue," then state it yourself. Tell us what YOU think. Akagi crap can wait.

WERE THE CODEBREAKERS TRAITORS, yes or no?

[jamaksin]

Larry,

Hello again today.

Oh, yes ... what Safford said ... how can I argue.

Please do not misplace your AKAGI materials' commitment.

Thank you in advance.

[LS]

Say it yourself. Say the words. Type them for everyone to see. You think the codebreakers are traitors, why not say it?

[jamaksin]

Larry,

Hello again.

What Safford said ... Yes, what Safford said ... how can I argue.

AKAGI materials ... please do not neglect those. Please.

Thank you very much.

[LS]

Your character or lack thereof is really showing. Can you not state, in your own words, what you think, without invoking someone else?

WERE THEY TRAITORS? YES OR NO?

And screw the "akagi" crap---I will never deal with that until you answer my question.

[jamaksin]

Larry,

Hello once again today.

Always good to hear from you.

And, yes ... what Safford said. Please review the citation I provided (viz., this thread). I cannot argue with Safford.

But, please, do not delay on those AKAGI materials.

Thank you once again. Your helpfulness here is recognized and much appreciated.

Thank you.

[LS]

Your character or lack thereof is really showing. Can you not state, in your own words, what you think, without invoking someone else?

WERE THEY TRAITORS? YES OR NO?

And screw the "akagi" crap---I will never deal with that until you answer my question.

[okie01]

It is the nature of intelligence work that projections must be made on the basis of partial knowledge -- and that often of uncertain provenance.

Consequently, the product and resultant decisions are, by definition, less than perfect.

Hindsight, however, is not shackled by such inconvenient bindings. Its purveyors have the luxury of kibitzing history.

To my mind, the "FDR let Pearl Harbor happen" are akin to the "Truman knew he didn't need to drop the bomb" revisionists and are peddling a line of historical crap.

Executive decisions must be made in real-time with less than perfect knowledge, and always within the context of the existing situation.

By any reasonable measure, FDR did his job. Kimmel, et al, didn't.

[LS]

I agree. Moreover, I think the false claims of Japanese radio traffic are just that, false.

My point with Makasin is that HE THINKS the cryptographers colluded to conceal the "warnings" that they knew were there, and in so doing protected FDR.

I want HIM to say it, not refer to "Safford" or someone else---this is a typical media trick, ascribe to someone else what you really think.

Once he admits what he thinks, he must either conclude they are traitors or conclude that they were idiots and incompetents. There is no middle ground, given his perspective. Since I don't think they ever intercepted the stuff (which wasn't sent) in the first place, I have no problem seeing the cryptographers as honorable men who did their job to the best of their ability.

[Scotts]

Forgive me but it seems you are saying that radio deception was not used? Have you e-mailed Wilford and Villa about this?

[okie01]

My point with Makasin is that HE THINKS the cryptographers colluded to conceal the "warnings" that they knew were there, and in so doing protected FDR.

And such collusion is utterly inconceivable.

On such a rock, revisionist theory founders.

Why has history become no longer good enough for the historians. Why do some feel compelled to rewrite it?

[Scotts]

Joe A Maskin certainly has problems with his research. It also seems to be, in my humble option quite outdated (based on debates over the last year between mentioned authors). Much of his theorys come from the absence of information (documents current going through the declassification process). Another chuck of his questions have been answered by experts far better than I. The rest seem to be carefully chosen quotations to better give his idealogy some form of credence.
I for one would be interested if Joe has anything new to add since our last encounter on the pearlharborattacked boards.

[Scotts]

edit: or is it Maksin

[LS]

Well, we historians DO try to stop such nonsense when we can. You might see my review of Stinnett's piece of drivel, in Continuity, vol. 26, I think. Alas, I don't have a web address for it.