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

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

[LS]

Duck and dodge, answer the question. YOU answer it. I can tell you, the vets don't particularly like you (an understatement). Have the guts to call them traitors to their faces.

[Scotts]

First of all how do you know ALL these AKAGI materials
are beyond public inspection? Or survived at all? Next
I can't tell you how much longer this may take.

Lets, go over the rest real fast.....lets see here, ...Yawn, more consipracy ideas you can't prove.........
Willey....lol...... whine...whine...need documents...

I'm sorry but what's the problem with Jacobsen? Did you read my comments?

All that seems left is the papers, so what papers are you looking for, please explain. Also you might want to check out the book "Pearl Harbor Papers". Or are those fakes??? (LOL!!) Come on your your downing here!! Your not even half the debater as kaminarikun was.

[Scotts]

Next time he says Safford just say ask what the author COSTELLO said? LOL!!!

[Scotts]

Oh please explain your thoughts on footnote 22

Furthermore, some basic research would have revealed that Nagumo was in the Akagi—not the Kaga—during that transit, further confirming that the subject transmissions were actually radio deception signals emanating from the Sasebo and Yokosuka naval bases.21 The 27 and 30 November and the 4 December transmissions would have resulted in bearings of about 041°, 046°, and 054°, respectively, instead of 027° or 030° if they were actually from the Akagi or the Hiryu. Both Corregidor's bearing of 027° on 8YUNA (Akagi) and the Station H, Heeia, intercept of the Akagi on 30 November (double asterisks) ties Corregidor's radio deception bearing pointing to Sasebo to the "tactical frequency" 4963 kHz. observed by Station H and confirms the transmissions on this frequency also were radio deception activity.22

22. Neither Stinnett nor Wilford mentions this relationship. Wilford alleges that the 30 November intercept revealed the Akagi was calling "tankers" and therefore such a transmission could not be radio deception activity. The Corregidor bearing, however, shows that the transmission probably emanated from Sasebo. Furthermore, 8YUNA was only observed calling "marus" and not "tankers" specifically. Regardless, Imperial Japanese Navy officials said the purpose of this radio deception was to mimic prior exercise activity, which included refueling exercises, to lead the U.S. Navy to believe the carriers still were exercising in home waters. Wilford, Pearl Harbor Redefined, p. 73; notes 6-9 above, NARA RG457 SRNs 115709 and 116588 Archives II; Layton et al., And I Was There, p. 227; and Goldstein and Dillon, The Pearl Harbor Papers, pp. 145, 209. back to article

[Scotts]

Oh will this help also??

Research by Japanese historians, fully supported by memoirs and testimony of Japanese naval officers who participated in the strike force, repeatedly has supported this conclusion.2 Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto ordered strict radio silence for all units of the Kido Butai. It was not broken until patrol aircraft from the cruisers Chikuma and Tone transmitted reconnaissance reports over Pearl Harbor and the Lahaina anchorage just prior to the actual attack.3


Numerous reports also confirm the practice of radio deception. Susumu Ishiguru, intelligence and communications officer for Carrier Division Two, stated, "Every day false communications emanated from Kyushu at the same time and on the same wavelength [probably 4963 kHz.] as during the training period. This would give eavesdroppers such as [Commander Joseph] Rochefort's Combat Intelligence Unit [the idea] that the First Air Fleet remained in that area for routine training.4 Behind them [the Kido Butai] the ships left their regular wireless operators to carry on an apparent routine radio traffic in their own 'fists' or sending touch, which is distinctive as handwriting."5


Captain Sadatoshi Tomioka said, "The Main Force in the Inland Sea and land-based air units carried out deceptive communications to indicate the carriers were training in the Kyushu area."6 The main Japanese naval bases at Yokosuka, Kure, and Sasebo reportedly were engaged in considerable radio deception practices.7
snip........
Furthermore, some basic research would have revealed that Nagumo was in the Akagi—not the Kaga—during that transit, further confirming that the subject transmissions were actually radio deception signals emanating from the Sasebo and Yokosuka naval bases.21 The 27 and 30 November and the 4 December transmissions would have resulted in bearings of about 041°, 046°, and 054°, respectively, instead of 027° or 030° if they were actually from the Akagi or the Hiryu. Both Corregidor's bearing of 027° on 8YUNA (Akagi) and the Station H, Heeia, intercept of the Akagi on 30 November (double asterisks) ties Corregidor's radio deception bearing pointing to Sasebo to the "tactical frequency" 4963 kHz. observed by Station H and confirms the transmissions on this frequency also were radio deception activity.22


A couple more fun footnotes.......

2. Gordon Prange, Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History (New York: Penguin Books, paperback, 1991), pp. 53-54 (Rear Admiral Ryunosuke Kusaka, Mitsuo Fuchida and [Susumo] Ishiguro); Edwin T. Layton et al., And I Was There (New York: Morrow & Co., 1985), note 15, p. 547 (Commander Genda, Lieutenant Commander Chuchi Yoshioka); Layton et al., And I Was There, p. 184 (radio silence generally); Michael Slackman, Target Pearl Harbor (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), p. 70, 321 note 5 (Heijiro Abe, Iyozo Fujita, Junich Goto, Hideo Maki, and Heita Matsumoto); Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon, The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans (Washington: Brassy's, 1993), pp. 186, 207 (Sadao Chigusa); Goldstein and Dillon, pp. 281-82 (study of the Pearl Harbor operations, lessons, communications). back to article

3. Paragraph Four, Appendix to Combined Fleet Secret Order Number One, NARA RG38 CNSG Library Box 94 5750/37 at National Archives II, College Park, MD; Gordon Prange, At Dawn We Slept (New York: Penguin Books, paperback, 1982), pp. 501-2. back to article

[jamaksin]

Nothing from Lanzendoefer nor Jacobsen ... You did sent them e-mails. Oops – you did not. My error, please pardon me.

Curious that, “... amply documented ...” and “ ... almost complete ...” are correct are they not? Were the citations incorrect? [Does everyone not find it interesting that the text of the same author can be used to express hermeneutic – interpretive – views? Layton, for example.]

On level of effort shown ... ii it a display of the “activity trap” perhaps ... As in, activity versus achievement. That “little blue dress” of AKAGI ... just keeps on a’tick’n ...

Perhaps those cited texts might better be termed “carefully selected” excerpts. What to do?

[What would, for example, a historian do? Of course, that definition – historian - would be what exactly? Would a person who has earned a degree in History, awarded by an accredited institution be thought of as a “historian” – without question? Would a person with a passing interest in things past be thought of as a “historian” – without question? Just wondering ... of the two ... whose “history” would likely be deemed as better? Is there really a “better” history ... and that would be based upon what? You were saying ...?]

But, to add to those of your “carefully selected” remarks of MR. COSTELLO [as found in the “Remarks at the Meeting of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Members of the Kimmel Family Dealing with the Posthumous Restoration of the Rank of Admiral for Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, United States Navy, April 27, 1995, Washington, D.C.”], if I may:

============================================================

... SENATOR THURMOND: Now, any material that you need in this, I hope you’ll get in touch with the Committee here –

A SPEAKER: Yes, sir.

SENATOR THURMOND: -- so we can furnish anything further that you may need.

MR. COSTELLO: One point if I may make and it does come up because because I’m a British citizen – (N.B., “because because” as in original text)

SENATOR THURMOND: This is Mr. Costello.

MR. COSTELLO: -- and because I am having difficulty getting the British Government to declassify material relevant to the Pearl Harbor intelligence issue because it’s subject to the UK-USA Intelligence Agreement, which is unrecognized and unspoken but known about by anybody in the business. Could we have an assurance, Senator, from the Secretaries present that they will request the British Government to provide them the information which I was told two weeks ago I couldn’t have because it was subject to this agreement? It is germane in my judgment. It does exist in the archives of the British Foreign Office, and it should be in the public record of this but it is listed as wanting and it has surfaced in the other forms in the Naval Intelligence Reports that were given by the British, and I would think that it would be appropriate, given that it is 50-odd years or more now, that there is no reason if the American Government is agreeable that this stuff should not be put in the public domain. It is important in my judgment to understanding the whole of the Pearl Harbor story.

SENATOR THURMOND: I’m sure these gentlemen want to get all the information they can and possibly they might make a request, the Defense Department might make a request to the British Government to make anything available that would help you.

SECRETARY DEUTCH: Mr. Chairman, we’ll consider it. I don’t want to give an assurance on it but we’ll consider whether such information would actually be of help to us and we will act on it if it would.

SENATOR THURMOND: Of course all any of us could want is the truth and if there’s any information available anywhere that would help them, I’m sure they be glad to get it. ...

[As a follow-up here, the so-called DORN REPORT followed, issued on December 15, 1995, and might be read by those interested, having the Department of Defense response.]

[P.S., One particular area of interest to Costello surrounds the events of November 26, 1941, viz., what communications arrived at the White House. For those having an interest here, his Pacific War and Days of Infamy each discuss this aspect of Pearl Harbor. When Kimmel asked Stark about this ... the famous reply from Stark was that of “state secret” – another of those “open” inconsistencies of Pearl Harbor.]

[P.P.S. Costello, along with Pineau, was a co-author with Layton of And I Was There ... This is a text from 1985.

As Scotts noted that the H-DIPLO materials I cited earlier were “dated” – Layton must then, by Scotts “lights,” be a truly ancient artifact ... which nonetheless he points to. And then points to Prange from the same era - curious. Should than not the books of Stinnett, Wilford, Budiansky, Gannon ... circa 2000 be viewed as absolutely definitive - full stop - due to the later date of their release. Is that what Scotts means? Let's ask Scotts ... So, is it? ... I wonder ... what do “historians” think here? Just curious – seems very odd.]

============================================================

So, similar to those AKAGI materials ... what does Costello have “ ... 50-odd years or more now, ...” and what does Deutch reply, to paraphrase, “ ... we look at it and let you know ...” have. Is that as in the fox guarding the henhouse? Are the many authors which point to this state of Pearl Harbor documents wrong ... all wrong? Consider, now for the Pearl Harbor materials is beyond 60-odd years.

[But, recall that it took a British underseas film crew’s release of photographs of the cargo of the SS LUSITINIA to reveal the truth ... yup, her was carrying munitions – after many decades of official government denials ... burst. When, for example, as several Churchill files will not be released until ... 2016 ... will the UK-USA Agreement trump that?]

Also, do the Deutch comments not also imply that an in situ mechanism can “speed things along” vis-a-vis “declassification” ... [But, do let’s continue to mail in those FOIA requests ... as many as possible, please ... for the release of all those source materials used to development the Communications Summary of November 30, 1941 regarding AKAGI ...]

It all depends, it seems all to clearly, on just what is being asked for – as many have shown.

So, your AKAGI replies have been appreciated ... more activity versus achievement perhaps.

Thank you ever so much here – please continue - especially for those citations.

It is “Truth, Justice, and the American Way,” after all – agreed?

[Scotts]

Joe:
"Nothing from Lanzendoefer nor Jacobsen ... You did sent them e-mails. Oops – you did not. My error, please pardon me."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What should I ask them for you? What's the problem?

But does this help???
Jacobsen start:
"I thought I made it clear that the Strike Force was assigned new frequencies and new call signs prior to the transit to Hitokappu Bay. The old “tactical frequency” of 4963 kHz that was mentioned being used by “carriers” on 26 November and the Akagi on 30 November had been reassigned to the radio deception program from the Sasebo, Kure (and one case the Yokosuka) naval bases. There was the dual interception on 30 November by both Station’s C and H whereby the bearing of 027 degrees (Sasebo) also equated to the Akagi’s transmission noted by Station H.
end quote..........
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Joe: "But, to add to those of your “carefully selected” remarks of MR. COSTELLO"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Boy it took you long enough....but it wasn't very carefully selected. I posted quite a bit. Not just a line or two.
snip..... stuff that Joe is trying to tack on to his grand conspriacy.............
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Joe:
When Kimmel asked Stark about this ... the famous reply from As Scotts noted that the H-DIPLO materials I cited earlier were “dated” – Layton must then, by Scotts “lights,” be a truly ancient artifact ... which nonetheless he points to. And then points to Prange from the same era - curious. Should than not the books of Stinnett, Wilford, Budiansky, Gannon ... circa 2000 be viewed as absolutely definitive - full stop - due to the later date of their release. Is that what Scotts means? Let's ask Scotts ... So, is it? ... I wonder ... what do “historians” think here? Just curious – seems very odd.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Joe when you get nervous you start to break up, form complete cohesive sentances please.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Joe:
So, similar to those AKAGI materials ... what does Costello have “ ... 50-odd years or more now, ...” and what does Deutch reply, to paraphrase, “ ... we look at it and let you know ...” have. Is that as in the fox guarding the henhouse? Are the many authors which point to this state of Pearl Harbor documents wrong ... all wrong? Consider, now for the Pearl Harbor materials is beyond 60-odd years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So tell me how long did it take for Budiansky to get his documents?? LOL!! Gee wasn't that in 1999??? How many years was that. Was that odd? How long did it take for Stinnett to get his documents? Was that odd also? How long did it take for Wilford's found documents to come out?? Come on you can do the math!! Would you please.............
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Joe:
So, your AKAGI replies have been appreciated ... more activity versus achievement perhaps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sure also see

Paragraph four of the appendix to the Combined Fleet Secret Order No. 1, which specified absolute radio silence for the Kido Butai. Wilford’s old general radio silence order that came out of the Nachi papers was superceded TWICE. Once by the appendix to that Order that applied specifically to the Strike Force and then by Yamamoto’s message of 24 November effective 25 November that applied to the fleet in general.

Does that help. LOL!!!
Oh and please once again answer my questions.
Boy are those adding up?
What are you afriad of?? So what did you think of those footnotes? How about the article? How big is this conspiracy? etc etc.........

[Tracy White]

Apologies for the delay. I saw the following and had to go away for a couple of days to make my head stop hurting:

'How do you know it's AKAGI?' I asked. Joe explained, 'It's the same ham-fisted radio operator who uses his transmitting key as if he is kicking it with his foot.' ..." [Oops, seems said operator is not ... where did you say ... the inland sea?]

===============

Please help me here Joe; he recognized the OPERATOR. We have statements that said operator was at Sasebo and not aboard the Akagi. So how does this help your position that this is proof that Akagi transmitted? I don't understand why you want to shoot yourself in the foot like this.

As far as the superceeded CA Nachi papers, " Combined Fleet Operation Order No 1" is dated 5 November 1941.
"Carrier Striking Task Force Operations Order No. 1" and "Carrier Striking Task Force Operations Order No. 3" are both dated 23 November 1941

[Tracy White]

One last point for the day, you questioned how the US knew it was Akagi. We know that roughly 3,800 code groups of JN-25B had been retrieved or were known by the attack on Pearl Harbor. A great number of these would have been ship and location identifiers. Akagi's 8YUNA could have been seen passing traffic to several code groups known to be Marus of one type or another. I don't know this for certain, but you asked HOW and I present a possibility.

[jamaksin]

Thank you for your note.

Perhaps, a bit more from Layton ... continuing from the prior quote:

"But it was not much help to Kimmel that morning to know that the AKAGI was two hundred miles away ..."

You were saying where?

Thank you for re-connecting to the discussion.

P.S., Any other means used to determine ships used at that time?

[Scotts]

What and no thanks for the orders I gave you??

[jamaksin]

Very interesting ... Are Lanzendoefer and Jacobsen just not responding ...? That is odd. Have you stopped trying - that must be it.

Citations ... citations ... clear citations ... public domain citations ... citations ... citations are most welcome. As are FOIA requests ... please mail those FOIA requests. Thank you.

So your reply for the AKAGI materials ... all in time ... all with be revealed - it took Stinnett (Are those your kudos to Stinnett for his persistent pursuit - wow! Please check his paperback, page 372, note 7, last paragraph - 4963 kilocyles ...) how long you say ... Written like a true "historian?" [You never cleared that up ... a "historian" is ... like Herodotus, ... Gibbon, ... But, please, your defintion would be?]

Does that "... all in time ..." approach "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" by your standard ... Not so in this corner. Why? Because of the SS LUSITANIA, USS INDIANAPOLIS, USS LIBERTY, USS IOWA, ... Tailhook, ... history.

That "little blue dress" of AKAGI is more and more apropo upon each of your replies. As is the "lost document" defense ... which moves on to the "Well, we just didn't know ..." defense.

Your referenced ... "Once by the appendix to that Order that applied specifically to the Strike Force and then by Yamamoto’s message of 24 November effective 25 November that applied to the fleet in general." - be a good chap here and provide a proper citation for all who are interested. Someone said "amply documented" ... so please do.

Thank you so much for your AKAGI position ... the material [raw intercepts, how recorded, code used, frequencies, time of day, RDF bearings, signal characteristics, ... etc.], as stated, used to develop the summary, remains classified still, after numerous and very specific FOIA requests.

Correct statement - until that material is released fully ... it cannot be said with absolute certainty that the Striking Force maintained complete/strict radio silence (all frequencies at all times) - whether human-keyed or automatic/simultaneously receive/re-broadcast - Correct statement.

Thank you for your contributions in keeping the "door to Pearl Harbor" so open - like a beautiful barn door. Much appreciated here.

[Scotts]

Very interesting ... Are Lanzendoefer and Jacobsen just not responding ...? That is odd. Have you stopped trying - that must be it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Silly Joe, you must be really mad now!! I guess you must not of read anything I wrote.
I just POSTED part of an e-mail I got TODAY. What’s the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Citations ... citations ... clear citations ... public domain citations ... citations ... citations are most welcome. As are FOIA requests ... please mail those FOIA requests. Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Its that kind of hypocritical? LOL!! What requests? I'm happy right now. But yes I do have some of interviews.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Joe: So your reply for the AKAGI materials ... all in time ... all with be revealed - it took Stinnett (Are those your kudos to Stinnett for his persistent pursuit - wow!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No not kudos just stating that it seems common for information to take a long time. What did you say 60 years?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Please check his paperback, page 372, note 7, last paragraph - 4963 kilocyles ...) how long you say ... Written like a true "historian?" [You never cleared that up ... a "historian" is ... like Herodotus, ... Gibbon, ... But, please, your defintion would be?]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Citations ... citations ... clear citations ... please explain.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Joe: Does that "... all in time ..." approach "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" by your standard ... Not so in this corner. Why? Because of the SS LUSITANIA, USS INDIANAPOLIS, USS LIBERTY, USS IOWA, ... Tailhook, ... history.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do you duck questions and ignore responces on those like Pearl Harbor? Just wondering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Joe:
Your referenced ... "Once by the appendix to that Order that applied specifically to the Strike Force and then by Yamamoto’s message of 24 November effective 25 November that applied to the fleet in general." - be a good chap here and provide a proper citation for all who are interested. Someone said "amply documented" ... so please do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You edited out "paragraph four of the appendix to the
But no not until you talk nice and in complete sentences. Oh you can thank Phil for that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As is the "lost document" defense ... which moves on to the "Well, we just didn't know ..." defense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The "lost document" defense. Says who? Where does it move to "Well, we just didn't know?" Who's we? Looks like you have the" lets call everybody liers and everythings I don't like it fake "defence. If I had to choose out of those I'll take the "lost document" defence anyday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thank you so much for your AKAGI position ... the material [raw intercepts, how recorded, code used, frequencies, time of day, RDF bearings, signal characteristics, ... etc.], as stated, used to develop the summary, remains classified still, after numerous and very specific FOIA requests.
>>>>>>>>>
Could you prove the above statement please about the remains classified still, after numerous and very specific FOIA requests?
Also did you read the artcile. You know the one you keep avoiding. I guess you have the "it must be important if I don't know it" defence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Joe:
Correct statement - until that material is released fully ... it cannot be said with absolute certainty that the Striking Force maintained complete/strict radio silence (all frequencies at all times) - whether human-keyed or automatic/simultaneously receive/re-broadcast - Correct statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well it depends how much current information you want to wish away and how many people you want to accuse of lieing. Correct statement
The door is never closed for a consipiracy theorist.

[Scotts]

See ya Friday guys............

[jamaksin]

As taken directly from your post, the quotation regarding the orders (and not taken from nor edits of Jacobsen), you have provided no citations - perhaps simple neglect.

That was the request ... APA, MLA, Chicago Style Guide, ... any format you wish ... but, please, the request was for a "proper" citation.

What would a "historian" supply ... be a good chap here, please.

So, please, again, endeavor to provide that. An open, in the public domain, citation.

As to "Truth, Justice, and the American Way," - and your sense of that "door" - from:

Michael V. Gannon’s Pearl Harbor Betrayed: The True Story of a Man and a Nation Under Attack published by Henry Holt and Company, New York, NY, copyright 2001 [ISBN 0-8050-7182-2 (pbk.)]. Please, determine for yourself if this text “falls inside or outside” those of the “allowed span” of time some seem to mandate for some reasons ...

Gannon ending sentence on page 282 – “Truth is the daughter of time.”

So you were saying about that "little blue dress" of AKAGI source materials (viz., raw intercepts, date(s), time of day, how recorded, ..., etc)... what? And your citations of those orders ... are where ...?

[Oh, lest I am remiss, I do assume that you do know the Prange books. Does the tenor of this message thread remove from all future dialogues on this AKAGI topic those pesky flags and lights? After all, how do you "heard" those on a tactical {radio} circuit? But, please, if for the sake of Prange's scholarship, that myth needs to be perserved ... please do.]

P.S., You do know of Gannon's text? Also on page 282 is a found a letter, perhaps of interest to everyone:

The letter was drafted by Kimmel, but never sent to Stark:

“You betrayed the officers and men of the Fleet by not giving them a fighting chance for their lives and you betrayed the Navy in not taking responsibility for your actions; you betrayed me by not giving me information you knew I was entitled to and by your acquiscence [sic] in the action taken on the request for my retirement; and you betrayed yourself by misleading the Roberts Commission as to what information had been sent to me and by your statements made under oath before the Court of Inquiry that you knew were false.

I hope that you never communicate with me again and that I never see you or your name again that my memory may not be refreshed of one so despicable as you.”

Just curious ... by your "definition" is Gannon a "historian" ... ? He did speak at the Thurmond Hearings ... on, what was it, ... long-range aerial reconnaissance ... and lack of resources to do same ...

So the "best" you have on that "little blue dress" of AKAGI is ... all in time ... ? Somewhat wanting ... for a "real" historian ... ? So, please, mail those FOIA requests ...

Thank you very much, as always.

[jamaksin]

Thank you.

However, of interest in this corner is really the five numeral, five-digit, Naval Code D, 5-digit, 5-Num ... or similar "terminology" for raw intercepts - not your "JN-25B" reference.

Thank you again.

[aristeides]

Why do you keep talking about treason, as though treason and incompetence were the only possibilities? Surely there are many possibilities in between. Obedience to military orders does not constitute anything close to treason, even if the person obeying them harbors considerable doubt about their wisdom. As a veteran of many years in military intelligence, most of them in signals intelligence, I have obeyed -- and continue to obey -- many such orders.

[LS]

I agree that those are not the only two alternatives----but those are the only two that Joseph has laid out, and in fact, if you read carefully his very early posts, he excluded incompetence.

He STRONGLY implied that all these men covered up after the fact, and continued to do so after the war, before military and congressional hearings, and so on. There is actually only ONE alternative for him---that these men were traitors.

Moreover, I'm not even going to argue the technical details of "what the cryptographers found/learned," because REAL veteran cryptographers have already blown that out of the water. The Japanese ALL testified they had radio silence. There is not one who has contradicted that. All our cryptographers testified that there was no radio contact after the ships left Japan. What is at issue here is Mr. Duck and Dodge's inability/refusal to state plainly what he believes, because he knows the fury of hundreds of honorable vets would be on his head. They KNEW WHAT THEY HEARD AND SAW, and knew it was not any nonsense that they had "advance warnings" and covered up, military orders or not.

[aristeides]

I know there were things in my military career that I was expected to lie about. I find it perfectly believable that our cryptographers in WWII might have been told to lie about radio traffic involving the Kido Butai. I don't know if that Japanese fleet in fact broke radio silence, but I've seen evidence that they might have. If our cryptographers were told to say nothing about this, and obeyed, they were no more traitors than I am.

[LS]

Even if I accepted that, you certainly were not required to lie years after the fact, and to continue to perpetrate a lie. That is this fellow's position---that the cryptographers have continued to lie. I find that preposterous. More important, the JAPANESE would not have lied, or continued to lie, about the non-existent radio traffic. They have no reason to.

You are cutting this fellow way too much slack. He is dishonoring all veterans with his rabid accusations.