Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obituary: John Toland, 91, Author of Best-Selling History Books, Dies
New York Times ^ | January 7, 2004 | CHRISTOPHER LEHMANN-HAUPT

Posted on 01/07/2004 6:04:43 AM PST by OESY

John Toland, a best-selling historian whose book "The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945" won the 1971 Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction, died on Sunday at Danbury Hospital in Connecticut. He was 91 and lived in Danbury.

The cause was pneumonia, said his daughter Tamiko Toland.

Reviewing "The Rising Sun" (Random House) for The New York Times, Walter Clemons called it a "big, absorbing and finally very moving history of the Pacific war, told primarily from the Japanese viewpoint."

In research for his books, Mr. Toland typically sought to do as many interviews as possible, sometimes hundreds. For "Rising Sun" his subjects ranged from Japanese generals and admirals to housewives who had survived the nuclear attack on Hiroshima. This technique served him well in perhaps the most popular of his histories, "Adolf Hitler" (Doubleday, 1976), an anecdotal portrait that several reviewers called the most comprehensive biography of Hitler up until that time.

He entered a long-running historical debate about the Roosevelt administration's culpability at the start of the Pacific war with " "Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath" (Doubleday, 1982). In a shift from his conclusions in "The Rising Sun, " Mr. Toland said he had turned up evidence to conclude that Roosevelt had known in advance of Japan's impending attack but failed to inform the naval command in the Pacific in the hope of rousing America from its isolationism. This view put him at odds with a series of official federal investigations and historians who said Roosevelt may have made errors in judgment but neither knew about nor encouraged the attack.

John Willard Toland was born June 29, 1912, in La Crosse, Wis. He attended Phillips Exeter Academy and Williams College, getting his B.A. in 1936, and set out to become a playwright, attending the Yale University School of Drama in 1936-37. From 1942 to 1949, he served as a captain in Special Services in the Army Air Force, stationed in the United States. During the war, he married Dorothy Peaslack, a dancer. They had two children, Diana Netzer, of Basalt, Colo., and Marcia Toland, who lives in Oman. The marriage ended in divorce.

In 1960, while doing research in Japan, he married Toshiko Matsumura. She and their daughter, Tamiko, of Ithaca, N.Y., also survive him, as do three grandchildren.

By the mid-1950's, he had written many plays, novels and short stories, but remained unpublished. Encouraged by a friend, he turned to nonfiction and began to sell articles to magazines. His agent got him a contract to write a book on dirigibles, "Ships in the Sky" (1957), and he followed with a dozen books for adults and young people, specializing in World War II. A memoir, "Captured by History," was published in 1997.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: history; hitler; johntoland; obituary; pearlharbor; pulitzer; risingsun; toland

1 posted on 01/07/2004 6:04:44 AM PST by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Senator Kunte Klinte
Mr. Toland said he had turned up evidence to conclude that Roosevelt had known in advance of Japan's impending attack but failed to inform the naval command in the Pacific in the hope of rousing America from its isolationism.

With all the charges by Democrats about Bush, encapsulated in the New York Post headline: "BUSH KNEW" (about 9/11), perhaps the time has come to revisit the question of what FDR knew about Pearl Harbor -- a question that has already led to nine official and congressional investigations and the exoneration of Kimmel and Short. We know that the Japanese broke radio silence, and that we broke their naval codes, intercepted over 16,000 naval messages, observed the departure from Japan and tracked the Yamamoto fleet to within 200 miles of Hawaii, and moved our newest ships including two aircraft carriers out of the harbor before the attack. In addition, General George Marshall failed to brief Kimmel and Short on what he knew. When the remaining top secret documents are declassified and released, we may learn more.

Toland is supported in his conclusion by Robert Stinnett in his excellent and well documented book "Day of Deceit" which discussed the newly discovered 1940 memo by Lt. Cmdr. Arthur McCollum to FDR that set forth eight actions, if taken by the US, would entice Japan to attack the US. All proposals were implemented by the Roosevelt administration. In retrospect, one could persuasively claim that FDR's "end justified the means" in that more lives were saved by an earlier US entry into the war than were lost at Pearl Harbor. Comments?

2 posted on 01/07/2004 6:06:51 AM PST by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
One of my favorite historians. I'm sure his anecdotal approach to his subjects made history come alive for many thousands of readers, including me.

I always had the sensation reading his books that he had pulled back a heavy veil and we readers were standing in the same room with Roosevelt and Montgomery, Hitler and Hirohito, watching over their shoulders as they planned attacks and battle strategies. One of the great narrative writers of history of the last century, to be sure.

3 posted on 01/07/2004 7:01:05 AM PST by Middle Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
We do? I don't think so. Rather difficult to "break radio silence" when critical occillators are removed from all radios from ships in Kido Butai. Neat trick. It was part of the Japanese communication plan. Now...if you can explain to me why The Japanese would break radio silence before a impending attack on Pearl Harbor I would be please to hear it. Th radio traffic heard was standard maritime weather code used by commercial ships to transmit local weather conditions. Not even a code really. A kind shorthand for meteorolgists. RDF fixes on the transmission put it 1,100 miles behind Kido Butai. Toland made the mistake of asumming this was Kido Butai and failed to check the Lats and Longs. derived from the RDF intercepts. He came a cropper as a result. He went for the brass ring of History. " FDR Knew"..many have tried. Toland's attempt was particularly sad. He was an old man swinging for the fence.In his zeal, he lost the historian's natural skepticism and failed to take the elemental precautions to insure the integrity of his work. He failed to submit his book for peer review prior to publication. He could have saved himself a great deal of grief. After his book he was like a haunted spectre among his colleagues. They were soliticous, kind, and sheltering. When that happens a historin is done. It is like treating a horribly wounded colleague. Did FDR know?...He may have. Is there compelling evidence to support the assertion. No... Not yet. Is there lots of time worn speculation presented as fact? Tons of it.
4 posted on 01/07/2004 7:37:11 AM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn
Did you read Stinnett's book, published in 2000 and based on newly released documents? I thought he made a compelling and well-documented case, albeit without ever having gotten a sworn statement of guilt from FDR.

As I see it, the solution that would end public speculation about unknowns, murky links and circumstantial (though substantial) inferences is to release the remaining state secrets 50 or more years old, and that should include even the documents that go all the way back to WWI. History deserves better answers.

BTW, this is not to argue that the PDFs should be released to the Kean panel -- which would jeopardize our ability to produce sound intelligence estimates in our War on Terror -- if they were be subject to political potshots and second guessing.

5 posted on 01/07/2004 7:17:28 PM PST by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Yes I did. Unfortunetely Stinnet neglects to mention that Japanese " admirals code" wasn't broken until 9 February 1943. Thus his entire thesis falls apart. A decoded message that was decrypted long after Pearl Harbor has no bearing on the events of Pearl Harbor.

His thesis that 4 US submarines spotted Kido Butai is laughable. The commanders and executive officers of those alledged subs would have reported those sightings and RDF logs and communications logs would have shown those entries. They would have been logged at Pearl and San Diego, Bremeton and certainly the Japanese would have picked up the transmissions and logged them. The Brits and Australians would have logged them. They would have had five point RDF fixes on the transmissions.

In order for events to have transpired as Stinnet says, it would require a conspiracy of hundreds of people. From senior admirals ( excluding Kimmel and His deputy) right down to enlisted radiomen from four different counties.
6 posted on 01/07/2004 8:12:53 PM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn; All
Regarding Toland - may he in God's Grace, rest in peace.

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

There are far too many inconsistencies on this topic - just one example, the SS LURLINE as discussed in Farago's Postscript of the Bantam paperback edition of "The Broken Seal."

Another obvious point - starting in the mid-1970's a myraid of the German ENIGMA materials have been released, including raw intercepts ... To date, and after decades of FOIA requests, no such level of release has occurred on the Japanese naval operational codes. Why is that?

Within Stinnett there are many items revealed for the first time, and also a highlighting of materials identified but which remain beyond public inspections. For example, FBI files, 19 missing SMS (Secret Message Series) messages from Yamamoto which the US Navy did not release the the National Archives, ...

Other authors (e.g., Clausen, Costello, Hoelhing, ..., etc.)have in the past pointed to "partial" PURPLE messages, papers within the still classified Churchill papers, ...

On the removal of oscillators ... the story is more likely the "telegraphic keys" or a fuse ... but, then, the explanation of the famous COMSUM14 of Novemeber 30, 1941 " ... AKAGI heard on tactical circuits ..." is say - problematic. Another aspect here - navies at the time used "automatic" simultanenous {See Howeth) receive/rebroadcast equipment ... that is no "human" fist involved. Did anyone think to ask the IJN officers if they only meant operator-keyed transmissions ... or all means of transmitting.

Per chance, if you believe in "radio deception" - then I'd point to Rocheforts' comments in (a) the Hewitt Inquiry, and (b) the also famous "Memorandum A" having to paraphrase "Did the Japanese Picture Us a Picture."

Finally, another of Stinnett's points - much of the communications information is stripped from many of the Pearl Harbor materials ... To/From ... frequency used, time of intercept, ... Also why do the Mid_Pacific RDF records remain classified or partial or even multiated (See Wilford). Why is that?

And so it goes ...

7 posted on 01/14/2004 6:19:48 AM PST by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jamaksin

From LCDR Jacobsen's review of " Day of Deceit"

I am a great fan of Toland's and may he rest in peace. Unfortunately he went for the brass ring late in life and came a cropper as a result. Had he checked his data with an naval communications specialist prior to publication he would have saved himself a great deal of grief.

One of the things I have noticed is Pearl Hrbor conspiracy theorists often use the same tactics as " Creation Science" folks. They find a small anomaly in the data and then sugest it is a global proof of their thesis while ignoring the huge body of evidence to the contrary.


<obert B. Stinnett's revisionist conspiracy theory book, "Day of
Deceit." In addition, Villa advanced many additional theories such as the
possibility of an Allied "pinch" of JN-25B, the Japanese naval
adminstrative code, from undisclosed places, the availability of pre-Pearl
Harbor decrypts from Dutch sources, and a concern for what happened to the
radio logs of the SS Lurline. I asked for substantiation and interjecting
some of my personal WWII experiences with Japanese naval cryptologic
procedures and subsequent research in my counter arguments. I also recall
that a hint as to hidden proof of U.S. pre-war decryption of JN-25B was
also suggested.

Now, Timothy Wilford appears with his "new" evidence and advises he and
Villa are working on a joint article "on American foreknowledge of the
Pearl Harbor attack." Equally interesting is Wilford's collaboration with
Stinnett and the announcement that such "new evidence" will be included in
the future paperback issue of "Day of Deceit."

This collaboration information plus Villa's continued critiques on Stephen
Budiansky's clear documentary evidence of no pre-Pearl Harbor U.S. Navy
JN-25B reportable decrypts in his book, "Battle of Wits," gives me the
distinct impression that the Villa/Wilford team is now closer to Stinnett
and his anti-Roosevelt revisionist conspiracy theory much more than
previously indicated during our past exchanges.

Turning to Wilford's post of 23 January, the fact that OP-20-G was working
on the older JN-25B additive messages for code recoveries while Cast at
Corregidor was working on the current JN-25B additive messages is not new
information but a well known and established procedure between them. As
indicated by LT. Parker, the main reason for this split attack procedure
was to reduce the wasteful duplication of book building efforts when so
few personnel were then available for this task and so small a percentage
of recoveries had been made. This continued split working allocation is
further evidence that no current decrypts and translations of useful
intelligence were being made and that the paucity of recoveries still
required an efficient attack towards building up the basic JN-25B
codebook. From an OP-20-G standpoint, more basic JN-25B codebook values
were being recovered through exploitation of the larger group of messages
available in the additive book six series than if they were to work
concurrently with Cast on the much smaller volume of messages available in
the additive seven series. From the message quoted, it clearly shows that
OP-20-G had milked everything from the available messages in additive book
five series and had finally assembled and probably made machine runs on
all the available messages in the additive book six series. They had all
the basic code recoveries and additives made by Cast and FECB in that
series and were starting their work to confirm such recoveries and add new
recoveries with their superior machine facilities and the availability of
all the messages in that series to work with.

From a Cast perspective, their job would be easier if OP-20-G were
assisting on the same additive book series, but that was not the most
efficient use of the limited number of personnel and did not take into
account the long delay for most raw intercepts to find their way to
Washington, D.C. Raw intercepts from Cast, Baker at Guam and Hypo in
Hawaii took up to two months and sometime more for these weekly shipments
to reach Washington, D.C. by ship and rail. The amount of raw traffic
sent by clipper to San Francisco and thence by rail was very limited.
Thus, when the JN-25B additive book was changed on 1 August 1941, most of
those first raw intercepts did not appear in Washington, D.C. until late
September and enough volume to commence an efficient analytical attack
were not assembled until months later. It is likely that even Cast did
not start working on additive seven messages until several months after
the 1 August 1941 change when sufficient numbers of messages became
available to efficiently attack the new additive book in view of the
relatively small number of recovered JN-25B book values. Budiansky's
documentary evidence bears this out. Even after the war started and
quantum leaps were made in resources and book recoveries as well as the
use of radio for message exchanges, delays in recovering new additives and
basic book values after changes continued to plague cryptanalysts for a
year or two.

Wilford seizes on the terminology used by then LT. John M. "Honest John"
Lietwiler to support his erroneous assumption that Cast was decrypting and
translating JN-25B7 messages suitable for reporting purposes (and
apparently that such decryption provides substantiation of Stinnett's long
held claim of FDR's foreknowledge of Japan's Pearl Harbor attack plans and
complicity in a massive conspiracy to get the U.S. into war with Germany.)
However, Wilford ignores the important qualifying parts of Lietwiler's
letter as to "code recovery efforts, etc. included." When Lietwiler talks
about "reading enough current traffic to keep two translators very busy,
i.e. with their code recovery efforts, etc. included", he is saying the
two translators (who are necessary to establish code book values) are
doing just that--establishing code book values--not making intelligible
decrypts suitable for reporting purposes. "Reading" does not
automatically mean decrypting and translating for intelligence reporting
purposes. Before you can establish new book values, a translator must
"read" enough of a fragmented recovery to tentatively assign a value to a
basic numerical code group.

In the early book building process, most recoveries of JN-25B as in other
codes are made from stereotyped phrases and numerals and it is a slow
process to get enough meat and potato values to begin to produce a
reportable decrypt. Since JN-25B was an administrative code, it was not
as susceptible as a stereotypical reporting code would be to obtain early
usable decrypts. In the case of JN-25B, part of the "reading" process is
to also recover additive book pages. Although it is secondary evidence, I
recall the discussions I had with then Commander (and later Captain)
Lietwiler in 1946-47 and 1956 about our group's pre-war and WWII
achievements. Specifically, that the Pearl Harbor attack was a complete
surprise and that the first reported decrypts of JN-25 were in 1942 after
almost all resources were turned on Japanese naval communications
including the expanded team of Station Hypo in Hawaii.

Although Stinnett enticed some naval cryptologists to "tell their story",
when that "story" did not fit his predetermined conspiracy agenda, he
either ignored, slanted or depricated such first hand primary evidence.
Captain Duane L. Whitlock, who was an analyst at Cast and worked hand in
hand with LT. Leitwiler and other cryptanalysts and linguists during the
time in question as well as FRUMEL later, categorically denies that any
JN-25B decrypts were ever made at Cast before 7 December 1941. Even
Stinnett felt compelled to quote Whitlock (page 72) as follows: "I can
assure those messages (Japan's naval) were not read until they were sifted
out and read in 1946." Whitlock has written about the first decryptions of
JN-25B in his Naval War College paper entitled "The Silent War against
Japan," which is available on the internet. I suppose Villa and/or
Wilford (like Stinnett) will take Whitlock's first hand personal account
to task in their support of "Day of Deceit" and its massive conspiracy
allegations. Curiously, Stinnett later calls Whitlock "one of America's
most honored and heroic code-breakers ..." while previously he intimated
Whitlock is lying.

Wilford compounds his erroneous evaluation of LT. Lietwiler's letter by
uncritically applying Fredrick Parker's article, "The Unsolved Messages of
Pearl Harbor," to that assumption and leaps to his conclusion of American
foreknowledge of of Pearl Harbor. First, there is an understandable amount
of 20/20 hindsight in Parker's conclusions. The only real evidence of any
significantly westward movement of carriers is the 1 December 1941 message
of the Shiya giving its projected westward tracks in the North Pacific
Ocean. To fully evaluate Parker's thesis and to try to make it applicable
to 1941 even assuming some capability at Cast to make an intelligence
worthy decrypt of JN-25B7 (which is denied by those concerned and by
specific documentary evidence), one must consider that Cast only
intercepted a small part of the messages that were available to the
1945-47 team that decrypted and translated those 26,581 Japanese navy
messages. Many of them came from Station H in Hawaii who had more
intercept positions than Cast and possibly also from Station Baker at
Guam. There are indications that some of these messages may have been in
other cryptosystems besides JN-25B.

These 1945-47 analysts had the advantage of almost seven more months of
additional messages with the JN-25B book plus all the great work of the
expanded Hypo group and the greatly expanded OP-20-G group with their
almost full effort put to bear on recovering these basic book values. In
addition, the 1945-47 group had no pressure to rush to press with
reportable decrypts and attacked these messages with an academic
thoroughness that included new machine advances made during the war.
Even then there are questionable conclusions and translations that
evidence the use of 20/20 hindsight. For example, the early messages
indicate warlike activity but against whom? Were such training exercises
in preparation for Soviet, British or U.S. ships? The most telling
questionable translations were the reference to NEAR SURFACE? torpedos in
the 23 October 41 decrypt and the parenthetical comment of PROBABLY BOW OR
STERN PLANES in the 28 October message. Without such questionable
identif! ications most of the training exercise messages have little
insight as to a possible Pearl Harbor attack.

Therefore, I see nothing of significant value in Wilford's "new"
discoveries and suggest a closer look into Parker's prefatory statements
strictly limiting the application of his analysis. In addition, a
critical viewing of the 1946-47 translations also show some natural
application of hindsight.

Many wonder why the near 100 percent accurate and complete Japanese
diplomatic message decrypts and translations produced so little action by
high U.S. (and British) officials when viewed by subsequent events. It is
quite likely that the same "noise" that Roberta Wohlstetter attributed to
the interpretation failures of Japanese diplomatic decrypts would also
apply to U.S. officials viewing of partial Japanese naval decrypts even if
they were available at Cast in late 1941. However, it is clear that
neither Wilford nor Villa nor Stinnett has made that first hurdle yet.

It is pertinent to point out that these pre-war U.S.Navy cryptanalyst
linguists forwent promotions to continue to provide vital intelligence in
their dedication to protect the United States from its potential enemies.
When revisionist theorists attempt to prove that President Roosevelt had
knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor through U.S. Navy
decrypts and failed to act on such knowledge to get the U.S. into the
European war, they are also indicting these cryptologic heros and former
shipmates of mine like Joe Rochefort, John Lietwiler, Duane Whitlock and
many many others for lying and being a part of their alleged coverup.
Frankly, it gets a bit discouraging to have to continually fend off such
unsubstantiated allegations, but soon most of my generation will be gone.
Then, those who want to may succeed in rewriting history by the sheer
weight and enormity of their allegations and the lessened interest of
their opponents.

8 posted on 01/14/2004 9:49:25 AM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn; All
You were saying ...

================================================= From: Philip H. Jacobsen List Editor: "H-DIPLO [Laderman]" Editor's Subject: Cryptology and Pearl Harbor [Jacobsen] Author's Subject: Cryptology and Pearl Harbor [Jacobsen] Date Written: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 05:30:16 GMT Date Posted: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:16:25 –0500

The last paragraph of this document is:

“Let me assure everyone concerned that the people that worked both on JN-25B and the traffic analysis of Japanese naval communications in late 1941 were dedicated, competent and and experienced professionals. With a much larger staff, up to date equipment and dedicated communications circuits perhaps the outcome might have been different. Any blame should be placed on those who didn't provide the resources to do so. A few dedicated men with relatively little to work with did an excellent job of sifting through two complete call sign changes within a month as well as many other wartime security measures employed by the Japanese including almost complete radio silence and still came up with the a lot of information on the massive Japanese fleet intentions and movements of November/December 1941. And they were and are not now engaged in any conspiracy or coverup.”

[N.B., the “and and” appears in the original text]

In particular, from the above is seen, “ ... other wartime security measures employed by the Japanese included almost complete radio silence ...”

The operative words here are, of course, “almost complete” ...

Yup, Phil’s own words here ...

[Recognize that Phil was not there ... he is not an "eye witness."]

========================================================= Another reference for you:

But, to extend this a bit more, from The Week Before Pearl Harbor by A. A. Hoehling (W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York, NY, 1963), in the Epilogue is to be found on Page 200:

“... That panic gripped the second deck of the Navy Department immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor is beyond reasonable dispute. One officer, then in intelligence, now in a high post in the Navy, told this writer that he went to his office safe one morning to find that a number of ‘magic’ dispatches were mysteriously missing. He never retrieved them.

ONI, in fact, had done such a thorough housecleaning of its top-secret and secret as well as not-so-secret files, that, according to another officer on duty at the time, not even a departmental organization chart of November and December, 1941, could ever be found. ...”

Or, on Page 204:

“ ... There are a few specialists, circa 1941, who insist that their memories as well must bear the ‘secret’ tag. A leading cryptanalyst, in retirement, hinting at a kind of passive brain-washing, with his pension as a lever, maintains he has been ordered not to discuss those long-ago codes and ciphers. However, the National Security Council, which he indirectly accused, has denied not only the allegations but any interest in the World War II period. ...”

Perhaps of note in passing, within Hoehling’s text (released some 22 years after the attack) are interviews with several principals, e.g., Stark, Kimmel, Bicknell, McCollum, Rochefort, ..., etc.

You have read this text - perhaps not. The US Navy using a pension as leverage for silence ... my, my ...

But, also note, for some this text might conveniently fall outside of their timeline of relevant Pearl Harbor related text. After all, JN25 in any variant is not mentioned, while Safford is quoted using “Operations Code” at the top of Page 76.

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

And another reference for you:

From: Tim Lanzendoerfer List Editor: "H-DIPLO [Moser]" Editor's Subject: Pearl Harbor Debate [Lanzendoerfer] Author's Subject: Pearl Harbor Debate [Lanzendoerfer] Date Written: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:10:41 +0200 Date Posted: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:57:01 -0400

As taken from the above document:

“There was one occasion, amply documented. There were no others. Why should the Japanese document the one occasion, but not the claimed others? Why should they broadcast this one occasion on a Navy frequency, but the claimed others on a merchant marine one? Why should they throw away their security with that? They undoubtly had a communications plan; it is documented in Prange's _At Dawn We Slept_ among others -- it was simply not to communicate with any means that could be traced from far away. They did once, because they had to. They did so in an absolutely critical situation, where the presence of the oiler force was required soon and its absence would force the operation to be cancelled. A tiny, short message was despatched, by a Kido Butai leadership that was positively terrified that it had to breach security like that. Unless Professor Villa asks us that we throw out of the window these facts which Prange and others have firmly established through interviews and archival research, for the rather dubious claims of one merchant vessel's radio operator, I do not see how we can ignore all of this.”

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

One more reference:

The Pacific War

John Costello

Rawson, Wade Publishers, Inc.

New York, 1981

Copyright by Atlantic Communications, Inc.

ISBN 0-89256-206-4

(Co-author with Layton and Pineau of “And I was there ...” from 1985. Note that many of the maps are shared ...]

Safford’s letter to Kramer – Page 647:

“Be prudent and patient. I am just beginning to get things line [sic] up on this end. No one in Opnav can be trusted. Premature action will only tip off the people who framed Admiral Kimmel and Gen. Short, and will also get Safford and Kramer in very serious trouble. Yet we must have the backing, the rank, and the prestige afforded by Adm. Halsey. Tell Halsey that I knew Adm. Kimmel was a scapegoat from the start, but I did not suspect that he was the victim of a frameup until about 15 December 1943, could not confirm it until 2 December 1943, and did not have absolute proof until about 18 Jan 1944. Capt. Safford has overwhelming proof of the guilt of Opnav and the Gen. Staff, plus a list of fifteen reliable witnesses.”

You and Phil et. al., were saying ...?

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

Very curious this Pearl Harbor topic – notwithstanding what Phil says. Far to many inconsistencies as noted earlier ... Why is that?

9 posted on 01/14/2004 12:44:07 PM PST by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn
The thing I find most goofy about the "FDR knew" debate is that everyone knew the Japanese were likely to attack. What people didn't know was where. All U.S. bases, including Pearl, had repeatedly been warned of the situation. Because of the ship activity spotted in the South China sea most people thought south and the most at risk U.S. possession was the Philipines. But no one knew the Japanese would strike two directions at once and be audacious enough to attack Pearl.

Did FDR want to join the Allied cause? Yes. Did FDR expect the Japanese to attack U.S. bases? He thought that was likely - that's why he made a last minute personal appeal to the Emperor for peace. Did FDR use the attack on Pearl to take us into the European war? Yes. Does this prove FDR knew of the plans to attack Pearl? Not even close.

10 posted on 01/14/2004 1:00:12 PM PST by colorado tanker ("There are but two parties now, Traitors and Patriots")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
The thing I find most goofy about the "FDR knew" debate is that everyone knew the Japanese were likely to attack. What people didn't know was where.

The thing I find most goofy about the "Bush knew" debate is that everyone knew Al-Qaeda were likely to attack. What people didn't know was where.

The more things change...

11 posted on 01/14/2004 1:05:09 PM PST by Timesink (I'm not a big fan of electronic stuff, you know? Beeps ... beeps freak me out. They're bad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OESY
I love Toland's biography of Hitler - one of my Top 100 books of all time.
12 posted on 01/14/2004 1:06:00 PM PST by GodBlessRonaldReagan (where is Count Petofi when we need him most?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
LOL! Excellent point.
13 posted on 01/14/2004 1:28:03 PM PST by colorado tanker ("There are but two parties now, Traitors and Patriots")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
I agree with almost all points in your post save the last. The most compelling evidence of all is the notion of motive. FDR wanted to assist the British on a more active level. I also believe that he wanted to enter the European war. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor FDR found himself warring with the "wrong" enemy. The US declaration of War against Japan based upon the attack at Peral Harbor did not include Germany. Given those sets of facts it could have resulted in the US fighting Japan ( Our war) while the Brits would be left to fight Germany in "their" war.

In what may well be the most strategic blunder in History Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11,1941. Under the tripartite pact Hitler was only obligated to declare war if one of the signatories was attacked. Clearly Japan could not claim that the United States Attacked Japan on December 7,1941.
14 posted on 01/14/2004 3:16:20 PM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Yes...I have found that if you take the word " conspiracy" and substitiute " incompetence" many things become very clear and explainable. Incompetence is a ubiguitous phenomenon in the modern world. Effective conspiracy is much less prevalent.

Most of the theories about " FDR Knew" require the cooperation of hundreds or thousands of people to accomplish. The success of a conspiracy is inversely proportional to the number of people particpating in the conspiracy.

Incompetence on the other hand doesn't require a large number of people to accomplish. All it requires is laggard leadership on the Strategic and Tactical level. It was abundantly clear to me that there was incompetence at Pearl Harbor ( Kimmel and Short) and in Washington ( Marshall and Stark). Incompetence however is not conspiracy.
15 posted on 01/14/2004 3:27:42 PM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Yes...I have found that if you take the word " conspiracy" and substitiute " incompetence" many things become very clear and explainable. Incompetence is a ubiguitous phenomenon in the modern world. Effective conspiracy is much less prevalent.

Most of the theories about " FDR Knew" require the cooperation of hundreds or thousands of people to accomplish. The success of a conspiracy is inversely proportional to the number of people particpating in the conspiracy.

Incompetence on the other hand doesn't require a large number of people to accomplish. All it requires is laggard leadership on the Strategic and Tactical level. It was abundantly clear to me that there was incompetence at Pearl Harbor ( Kimmel and Short) and in Washington ( Marshall and Stark). Incompetence however is not conspiracy.
16 posted on 01/14/2004 3:34:58 PM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn; All
Does the SS LUSITANIA ring a bell?

For how many years (hint: measured in decades) did the US government deny she was carrying contraband?

How many soul's were put in harm's way ... how many Americans died (129)?

It is a "settled" fact that if a British underseas film crew had not released the photographs of her cargo (yup, munitions - my, my) in the mid-1970's the US government's position would be, even today, what?

Over the decades, any estimate of the number of people within the US government who knew the "truth?"

Oh, yes, within two weeks of the public release of those photographs - guess what - out of the National Archives pops her original cargo manifest detailing the munitions ... found behind a file cabinet was the story . Care to count again the number of people who knew ... over those decades?

You were saying ... ?

More examples ... USS INDIANAPOLIS, USS LIBERTY, USS IOWA, ... Do you see a pattern here - or did you just stop to stay within the dogma?

[With that pattern, imagine if the USS GREENVILLE had surfaced at night ... thankfully the US Navy in her case did the correct thing.]

Quite simply - far too many things are "not right" with Pearl Harbor ... far too many things to easily point to as inconsistencies ...

Why is that?

17 posted on 01/15/2004 2:43:31 AM PST by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jamaksin
1. What does the Lusitania have to do with Pearl Harbor?

2. What does The Indianapolis have to do with Pearl harbor?

3. What The Greenville have to do with Pearl Harbor?

4. What does the Liberty have to do with Pearl Harbor?

5. What does the Iowa have to do with Pearl Harbor?

Now..those are all very interesting events. However your seamless connection with those events and Pearl harbor is..is...odd.


18 posted on 01/15/2004 8:54:09 AM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn; All
1. The now proven ability of the US government to maintain a cover-up for over half-century. This entailed a myriad of people and a long time ... and was only revealed when forced to. What was Phil's point here ... ?

2. and 4. The lengths to which the US Navy will go to maintain its view ... "The Navy, right or wrong, is the Navy." This does wonders to the command structure - truth, honor, ... and the scandals at the service academies says what ... ? My, my ...

3. Finally and forthrightly the US Navy fessed up in a timely manner ... About time ... An excellent first step ...

The exception to the rule [those patterns I mentioned] shows that one knows the rule - got it. In your case perhaps not?

You were saying ... ?

Another point - another of those inconsistencies - compare the treatment of Kimmel and Short to that of DugOut Doug ... How many hours warning did he get ...

Again, you were saying ... ?

19 posted on 01/15/2004 11:07:35 AM PST by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jamaksin
right..

and what does this have to do with any evidence of a " FDR Knew" conspiracy?

hmm?
20 posted on 01/15/2004 12:28:23 PM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn
All of which leads to Stinnett's text, the paperback edition, in its Afterword section - which obviously you are au fait with.

Oh, the last sentence of same is "We knew." ... and we did.

As Toland, and Beard before him, as well as Flynn and Barnes, ... , etc. have led in pointing out those oddities ...

So it goes ... do read a bit more and do stay curious - perhaps not.

21 posted on 01/15/2004 2:25:29 PM PST by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jamaksin
I have..

You seem to have some difficulty distinguishing between possibility (1 + infinity-1) and probablity ( 50%+1)

All the irrelevancies in the world do nothing to further your assertion. If you believe that the total weight of the tomes or the volume of strident voice furthers your assertion then you will be sorely disappointed.

All the theories, inferences, speculations, mean nothing if they only result in further theories, speculations, and inferences. It merely becomes a grand tautology.

Is is possible that FDR knew. Yes. There is nothing in the record that excludes the possibility. Is it probable that FDR that The Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor?..No. There is nothing in the record that would indicate that probability. There is a mountain of strained inference, goofy speculation, and grossly misinterpretated data that has been debunked by cryptanalysts.

Now the diffrence between possibility and probability is the difference between looking at Mount Everest and climbing Mount Everest. Any one who says they have climbed mount Everest by looking at it is intellectually dishonest.

The key to the Pearl Harbor issue is the earnest desire to understand the events as they happened not as you want to see them. Anything else is merely a variant of the well know phenomenom of the Texas Sharpshooter Effect.

ONe day perhaps some one will fine definitive evidence of Roosevelt's prior knowledge of the attack at Pearl Harbor. I know that as of this date that hasn't happened. Stinnet's book has been roundly and deservedly bashed by intelligence professionals as the kind of shoddy and intellectually dishonest interpretation of data that results form either incredible sloppiness or willful fraud. ( Intelligence professionals believe it is the later)

I can have some sympathy for Toland in that his error was understandable and explainable.

Stinnett?...can't say as much for him. To many glaring inconsistencies between the actual record and Stinnetts tortured prose. To make that many errors of fact and interpretation would appear to me to fall well beyond the level of accident and coincidence.
22 posted on 01/15/2004 3:09:48 PM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn; All
Um ... probability as in Bayesian analysis, or "fuzzy logic" as in yes/no/maybe or even better Borel sets. Maybe the simplier "confidence interval" from ANOVA is your plateau - perhaps not, however.

Are those to same "intelligence professionals" from the firm of Martin and Mitchell? More than a tad of the patina is gone there ...

Stinnett's prose might be a bit tighter - agreed. But, then this is so-called "popular history" and he did name names (viz., radio operators), show documents for the first time (e.g., TESTM reports), ... point to the wealth of documents still in US Navy hands and beyond FOIA rules, ... and those lead in only one direction. As Costello, Hoehling, ... also lead in that direction.

Now, on that "peer review" side ... your impression of Wilford's thesis is? Award winning thesis, you know. His article in the Northern Mariner also won an award ... yes, a refereed journal ... my, my.

The only "strident" voices I hear/see are those in the form of a bi-polar disorder.

Consider means of resoution here - just two instances for example:

A. Phil has in his latest missive (See December 2003 issue of Naval History) several uses of "probably" as in frequency ... well, why not open that still classified file and see the raw message - communication headers, at. el., You'd think Phil would actively advocate this approach - well, actually no, he would very likley not.

B. Stinnett shows SRN 116643 - aka the "famous" Tanpan Bay/Hittokapu Wan message - that is located at 45.0 N,147.66E (to help you find it). He shows two variants on pages 50-51, these are each annotated " ... spelled out, not from single code group." Agreed so far- perhaps not?

This particular message is vouchsafed by Duane Whitlock as not having it spelt out; LS and others point to this as a Stinnett fax paux ... (So, if in a given code book there is no nameplace for your location ... what do you do ... I'll give you a hint - See Hinsley and Stripp "Code Breakers - The Inside Story of Bletchley Park" - page 275.)

Now why not release that raw intercept with its communications informations ...

So simple, just two instances - yet no joy ... Why is that? So many oddities ... easliy resolved ... so why not after sixty plus years ... ?

On FDR ... has documentation ever been found that Hitler attended or knew or signed off on the Wannsee Conference? Are you expecting that? Perhaps the same with FDR - perhaps not. Or, for that matter, where was Marshall the night of December 6/7, 1941?

Again, you were saying ... what, exactly?

[Perhaps to stress the point - the US government would never have admitted to the contraband on the SS LUSITANIA until it had to (and the very essence of her as an example) ... Pearl Harbor will likely be the very same ... intelligence professionals nothwithstanding.]

Oh, yes, you were saying ... ?

23 posted on 01/16/2004 2:42:29 AM PST by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jamaksin
Let us try to be reasonable men. Since were are both interested in this subject lets try an experiement.

Give me your best explanation of FDR knew and the supporting evidence behind that assertion. Please try to avoid irrelevancies like the Lusitania, Liberty et al.In sum a clear , concise, and compelling argument supported by evidence. Avoid should haves, must haves, would haves, and could haves. Deal only in evidence. Avoid the weight of tome argument (eg there have been 19 books " proving" FDR knew etc..all this proves is 19 books have been written) Avoid the fallacy of reference arguments ( eg "Prove that FDR didn't know." I made no assertion. You are making the assertion therefore it is your assertion to prove. Proving the nonexistence of some thing is a classical fallacy) Please try to avoid what I call the OOOOoooWWwwwEeeeeOOOOo Method, in which thin tenuous connections are made between equally nebulous data in a general spirit of 'conspiracy'thinking.

Best of luck..

I will respond to your precis with close attention provided it is a clear, logical, and unambiguous analysis.
24 posted on 01/16/2004 8:50:56 AM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn
At law, generally in your first year criminal law course, are given some wonderful examples of "evidence" - perhaps you know them.

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

In a nutshell, one such example is rendered as:

Did you see Bubba bite off Tubba's ear?

No, your Honor, I did not.

Well, then, how can you say that Bubba did indeed bite off Tubba's ear, if as you stipulate, you did not see him do it? Please explain?

Your Honor, I saw Bubba spit it out ...

[Often another example is used - the "dropped" item - say a piece of chalk ..., but you may get the point.] Oh, the point ... like mathematical induction, evidentiary proof is permitted via indirect means. I can "prove" someone is dead without having to produce the body - another example. Kinda' like using a thermocouple to determine the termperature of a blast furnace ... it is done indirectly.

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

For, FDR ... and from many more that 19 texts ... nearly 200+ was my last count on the topic of Pearl Harbor ...

A. "This means war!" ... with Harry "The Hop" Hopkins present, and while Commander-in-Chief ... no ALERT is given.

B. Stark ... " ... everything I did was ordered." Stark had one superior. [You might see Gannon's text from a letter from Kimmel to Stark which was not ever sent.]

C. Marshall ... where was he the night of December 6/7, 1941 ... and why did he say his loyalty was to FDR suppassed that to the US Constitution?

D. Joseph Leib's 1984 article ... " ... What the media Won't Tell You ..." - or who knew and when.

A whole lot of spitting a'goin on ... Conan Doyle would be proud.

And let's do not neglect all those identified but still classified materials ... recall even that letter from Sappho to Kramer points to a cover-up ... and these were in situ intelligence officers ... It is a shame we cannot ask their opinion of Stinnett or Wilford ... so it goes

Do I expect a document signed by FDR with a notary seal ... nope - to direct.

So, again you were saying ...

25 posted on 01/16/2004 11:16:56 AM PST by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn
Good luck. The inability to distinguish possibility from probability is the genetic marker of the tinfoil fraternity. It is incurable. They look normal to each other. They should be encouraged to talk and marry among themselves.
26 posted on 01/16/2004 11:23:58 AM PST by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jamaksin
alas,

I gave you your opportunity and you failed to take it. This is a serious subject for serious people.

Perhaps I will , one day, find someone among the " FDR Knew" contingent who will give a calm dispassionate presentation of their evidence as they see it. Once again That day has not arrived. It is unfortunate. I would have enjoyed it.
27 posted on 01/16/2004 11:58:54 AM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
Nice phrase " Tin Foil Fraternity". Kinda sums it up. I had some hopes for jamaskin based upon his interest in the subject. Unfortunately, I have found once again he is more interested in the agenda, than he is the subject.
28 posted on 01/16/2004 12:02:05 PM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn
Actually, if you'll watch carefully, here is the actual pathological process:

They are unable to jettison the mental residue from pondering Possibility 1 before they turn their minds to Possibility 2. That means the possiblities have a CUMULATIVE EFFECT in their minds, so that a subjective PROBABILITY THRESHOLD is soon reached, and they interpret a dozen possibles (improbabilities) as a cumulative probability.

They can't seem to grasp that most observations are independent of each other, i.e. one possibility doesn't make the second possiblity any more likely.

Zero times 12 equals zero, not 12.

29 posted on 01/16/2004 12:11:09 PM PST by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
It is a fascinating process to watch in a sort perverse way. The most common rationale/equation is the number of times an assertion is made is a clear indication of the validity of the assertion. A corollary equation is the volume in which the assertion is made is further evidence of its validity. Another is the notion of the sum total of irrelevancies you can pile on to the assertion augments the assertion.

Oddly...Jamaksin uses the same excreable tactics that OJ Simpson's lawyers used bamboozle the jury.

I particulalry like your observation that nutballs transmute the sum of possibilites into probabiity. Candidly, I don't think jamaksin would find any fault in that logic.
30 posted on 01/16/2004 12:27:16 PM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn; All
Alas .. in this corner also.

So it goes ... They endure.

31 posted on 01/16/2004 3:09:58 PM PST by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn; All
What means "tinfoil" in this thread's usage, please?
32 posted on 01/17/2004 3:58:51 AM PST by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jamaksin
It is a reference to tin foil helmets. There is a phenomenon among very whacky conspiracy theorists that also leads them to believe that the government or aliens are sending " gamma" or other rays into their heads to prevent them from discovering " the real truth". The prevention measure is a cleverly crafted tin foil helmet to deflect the incoming rays.

There you have it...
33 posted on 01/17/2004 7:51:24 AM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn
Thank you.

I made the connection with a "tin can" and "tin foil" as the earlier term for aluminum wrapping "foil."

Geometry must factor in there somewhere - particularly with "gamma" rays.

Thank you again.

34 posted on 01/17/2004 8:07:44 AM PST by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jamaksin
addendum...For some of the whacky jacks the tin foil helmet is not a deflector of evil rays but a reciever that allows them to talk to God ( among the religiously inclined) or to talk with the Borgons from Planet Beta-Lurgan 4 ( for those more cosmically oriented). The reciever types of tin foil helmets are more complex with resistors, coins, and bits of wire or pop tops hanging from them to better enable the Whacky Jack to tune in to the proper frequency.
35 posted on 01/17/2004 1:16:43 PM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jamaksin
You're Stinnett aren't you?
36 posted on 01/17/2004 2:09:44 PM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: OESY
bump
37 posted on 01/17/2004 2:13:35 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn
Thanks for the addedum:

I'll fire up the old Hammarlund (real radios glow in the dark) and do an aperiodic scan for those frequencies. Of course, my R/S EK01 is my favorite from that era, but unfortunately now it needs some focused attention.

Thanks again.

38 posted on 01/17/2004 3:51:02 PM PST by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn
No.
39 posted on 01/17/2004 4:34:34 PM PST by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jamaksin
You are talking with the proud owner (and now wholly defunct) BC-610C. Even in my youth it was a dinosaur in 1966 and now it is positively Mesozoic. There comes a time when the FCC decides that bad notes are no longer tolerable and sends you nastygrams by the bushel barrel. The price of quaint AM nostalgia got too damn high. So it sits..awaiting the intrepid soul who has the desire and ability to bring the old sparker back to life and let it work its drifting and bad note magic and reinvigorate the FCC enforcement folks. Hell...I'll throw in a 2kw linear amplifier ( also defunct) for that intrepid soul.

Best,

Formerly WB4IRV (SSB is for wimps)
40 posted on 01/17/2004 5:26:12 PM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Crock..

ON December 7, 1941 were were reading ZERO Japanese OPerational Naval Messages. Either in whole or in part. Why?..because they had changed the additive books on their naval codes on December 1 The also changed the code from JN-25A to JN-25B.

Broke radio silence?...not according to the Japanese Naval Communications who ran their communications plan and its corrollary decpetion plan. They were transmiting like sumbitches. But it wasn't Kido Butai doing the transmitting. They aren't stupid.

Stinnett's book is a joke and has been roundly bashed by crypanalysts. Read the review by Budiansky in Cryptologia. Stinnett didn't know his fanny from a frequency.


41 posted on 01/17/2004 5:34:56 PM PST by tcuoohjohn (Follow The Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tcuoohjohn
On SSB ... agreed. And this phrase-locked loop, synchronous detection, DSP stuff, ... , etc. Why? Use a 6DC6 (as in R-390's) or even better a 6BZ6 (HQ-180AC) for first RF ... and Wow!!!

Of course, antenna design is another issue. There a R/S ESH 3 is quite nice.

73 and VA.

42 posted on 01/18/2004 1:49:40 AM PST by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson