Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Admiral Richardson & Pearl Harbor disaster

Discussion in 'Pearl Harbor' started by DogFather, Jul 31, 2009.

  1. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    Richardson, was Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Fleet, until Jan 1940. He was against the fleet's forward deployment to Pearl Harbor and was
    canned by FDR and replaced with Husband E. Kimmel.

    Richardson had said defending a perimeter so far removed, from the mainland was not possible....reguarding PH. Wikipedia goes on to say, the"CIA still refuses to release many of the JN-25 codes deciphered before Dec. 7, 1941". But the is no citation for this info, does anybody know if it's true?

    *************************************************
    From Wikipedia :Richardson is a main focus of historical revisionists, who claim pre-war intelligence that heavily suggested Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked by the Imperial Japanese Navy in early December was deliberately withheld from the military commanders at Pearl Harbor by the Roosevelt administration.[1] The CIA still refuses to release many of the JN-25 codes deciphered before Dec. 7, 1941, 2/3 of a Century later[citation needed].
     
    DogFather, Jul 31, 2009
    #1
  2. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,343
    Likes Received:
    5,702
    When Richardson testified before Congress he stated emphatically that he did not feel that Pearl Harbor was in danger of an attack. His complaints were based on logistical concerns, not security.
     
    OpanaPointer, Jul 31, 2009
    #2
  3. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    Were did you find his testimony? That is not what I have read about
    Richardson. Maybe he was covering for someone!
     
    DogFather, Jul 31, 2009
    #3
  4. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,343
    Likes Received:
    5,702
    I have all 40 volumes of the Pearl Harbor Attack Hearings, given to me in 1964. You can find them in a Depository Library near you. The Doc no. starts with Y4.

    And before you the call the man a liar you should have your ducks in a row.
     
    OpanaPointer, Jul 31, 2009
    #4
  5. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,343
    Likes Received:
    5,702
    Another good source would be On the Treadmill to Pearl Harbor: Memoirs of Admiral J. O. Richardson.
     
    OpanaPointer, Jul 31, 2009
    #5
  6. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    I didn't call you a lair. I asked you were you got that info! However, I am sure of one thing. The Navy brass have a history of covering for one another.
     
    DogFather, Jul 31, 2009
    #6
  7. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,343
    Likes Received:
    5,702
    I was referring to your statement about Richardson covering up for someone.

    BTW, your "source" looks to be a rehash of Bob Stinnett's puerile miasma of Alzheimer's induced fantasy.
     
    OpanaPointer, Jul 31, 2009
    #7
    Devilsadvocate likes this.
  8. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    I agree.

    The revisionists have thoroughly confused practically every issue involved in the Pearl Harbor attack. Their main intention seems to be to make money by selling controversial books to the ill-informed.
     
    Devilsadvocate, Jul 31, 2009
    #8
  9. John Dudek

    John Dudek Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2001
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    37
    Richardson was canned for several reasons. He didn't like Pearl Harbor as the main base for the Pacific Fleet because of its single and easily blocked entrance, plus its cramped interior and underdeveloped repair facilities. He was also mad because FDR ordered the Pacific Fleet to be based there rather than at San Pedro, California, its usual home port. FDR also ordered that the carrier Yorktown and a number of his battleships, cruisers and other much needed fighting and support ships to be diverted back to the Atlantic Fleet, where the U-boat war was heating up. Lastly, Richardson made the ultimate mistake of voicing his overall disapproval to FDR and got the axe as a result.
     
    John Dudek, Jul 31, 2009
    #9
  10. DogFather

    DogFather Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    5
    But DA, here is what you said in another post:
    The Pacific Fleet, in May, 1940 when it was ordered to Pearl Harbor was Admiral James O. Richardson. Admiral Richardson protested the move vigorously for a number of reasons, including his opinion that Pearl Harbor was not adequately defended against air and naval attack. When Admiral Richardson appealed to President Roosevelt he was overruled for political reasons. Richardson continued to press his opposition to the move and was subsequently relieved of command and replaced by Admiral Husband Kimmel.

    So, I be confused. Did Admiral Richardson feel Pearl was adequately
    defended or not. All the info I find on Admiral Richardson, says he did
    not want the fleet at Pearl, for lack of defense and other reasons. He
    also retired in the middle of a war.....that's unusual for a military man.
    I bet is he was forced to retire. He did many other things and lived until
    1974.

    DA you are clearly at odds with OpanaPointer, who posted this " When Richardson testified before Congress he stated emphatically that he did not feel that Pearl Harbor was in danger of an attack".
     
    DogFather, Jul 31, 2009
    #10
  11. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,343
    Likes Received:
    5,702
    Commanders always complain they don't have enough of everything. It goes with the job.
     
    OpanaPointer, Jul 31, 2009
    #11
  12. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    18,047
    Likes Received:
    2,366
    Location:
    Alabama
    And your bet would be correct. He spoke way too strenously against orders he was issued and then PH was attacked in the manner it was. Do you think the Navy wants him around saying "I told you so." whether it was "so" or not?

    Look at what happened to men such as Billy Mitchell, Benny Foulois and Hugh Knerr over in the army, when they voiced displeasure at national policy. All three had careers that were shorted and/or adversely affected because they had the temerity to vehemently voice objections, right or wrong, to national defense policy.
     
    Slipdigit, Jul 31, 2009
    #12
  13. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,343
    Likes Received:
    5,702
    UNITED STATES FLEET
    A16/ U.S.S. NEW MEXICO, Flagship

    Serial 022. Pearl Harbor, T. H.
    January 8[?], 1941

    CONFIDENTIAL

    FIRST ENDORSEMENT to
    Com 14 Conf. Ltr.
    C-A16-1/A7-2/ND14
    (629) of 30 Dec. 1940.


    From Commander-in-Chief, United States Fleet.
    To The Chief of Naval Operations.

    Subject Situation Concerning the Security of the Fleet
    and Present Ability of the Local Defense
    Forces to Meet Surprise Attacks.
    1. Forwarded. The Commander-in-Chief has conferred with the Commandant Fourteenth Naval District and the Commanding General of the Hawaiian Department. As a result of the conference with the Commanding General, Hawaiian Department, and an inspection in company with him, information was furnished the Commandant Fourteenth Naval District who prepared the basic letter. The Commander-in-Chief concurs with the Commandant Fourteenth Naval District in the opinion that the present Army Pursuit Squadrons and antiaircraft batteries are inadequate to protect the Fleet and Pearl Harbor against air attack. When established the proposed pursuit strength will be adequate. The proposed total of 68 mobile three-inch guns for this area is not considered adequate. With the almost continuous high ceiling prevailing in this area a materially greater number of larger and longer range antiaircraft guns are necessary to counter high altitude bombing attacks on Pearl Harbor. 2. As neither the increased antiaircraft batteries nor the augmented pursuit squadrons will be available for an extended period the defense of Fleet units within Pearl Harbor will have to be augmented by that portion of the Fleet which may be in Pearl Harbor in event of attack by hostile aircraft. Plans for cooperation with the local defense forces are being made. At present the continuous readiness of carrier fighter squadrons or antiaircraft batteries is not contemplated. The improbability of such an attack under present conditions does not, in the opinion of the Commander-in-chief, warrant interrupting entirely the training required by Fleet Air Units which would have to be largely curtailed if constant readiness of fighter squadron were required.
     
    OpanaPointer, Aug 1, 2009
    #13
    Slipdigit likes this.
  14. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    18,047
    Likes Received:
    2,366
    Location:
    Alabama
    So.....what Adm Richardson was saying to Adm Stark is that the current air defenses on Oahu are inadequate to defend the island and that carrier based aircraft will be needed to assist, but, that he thinks such an attack is not likely to happen, such that he will not detail aircraft from training to have them on standby and patrol.
     
    Slipdigit, Aug 1, 2009
    #14
  15. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    18,343
    Likes Received:
    5,702
    Under Plan Dog CinCUS would have expanded patrol duties. Richardson was pointing out that he could do that.
     
    OpanaPointer, Aug 1, 2009
    #15
  16. wrightpress

    wrightpress recruit

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    All those interested in Admiral Richardson should read my book, Pearl Harbor Countdown: Biography of Admiral J.O. Richardson. I am doing a second book that looks at the admirals of 1940 and tries to determine which of those were of the Richardson line of thinking. I also study the process of thought in the State Department and the Administration that led up to the Fleet placement at Pearl Harbor.

    Richardson did not by any means disappear from the Navy after January 1941. He was on the General Board assisting Knox, Stark and King for a year; spent nearly three years as executive director of the Navy Relief Fund; spent months heading a committee to determine how to formulate the defense department post war, which took him to both war fronts in a six week period; turned down a request to head a PH investigation [Hewitt took it]; testified at the PH Hearings; and concluded his career with Navy testimony at the Tokyo War Crimes Trials.

    Skipper Steely
     
    wrightpress, Jun 21, 2010
    #16

Share This Page