Honest question: please explain, what I missed about NCI's conclusions, if I did miss something?

Arm Chair General is a forum you just joined. I was on Axis History before you as well. You also claim I can post, what
you call my conspiracy theory, yet in at least one case, you have suggested my post was spam. So, your statements
and behavoir are not consistant. You have also told me, I am nothing but a pest and to go away. Which is why I looked
for other forums in the first place. Yet, you and your supporting crusiers and destroyers (which has become my metaphor,
for the people who always back you up), are also on the other forums. It just seems to me that your real goal is not
letting me post at all. Unless I guess if you argee with what I am suggesting is accurate and in keeping with your opinion,
about past events.

 

You did no such thing DogFather, you provided a website that:
A.) Said that Knox's report said that Japanese sabotage was responsible for the success of the attack. Which is false, and I provided you with the exact quote for Knox's report.
B.) Said that it was only after the Knox report was made public did these rumors begin rapidly coming from Hawaii. Again this is false as the rumors were flowing from the day of the attack.
C.) Said that all of the reports were never substatiated. Which is true.

Your website FAILS TO PROVIDE PROOF that Knox lied to the public. A "lie" is an intentional falsehood given with the intent to deceive, and the website provides nothing regarding that Knox's statement was a.) an intentional falsehood, or b.) given with the intent to deceive.
As such, it in no way supports your contention that Knox "lied" to the public. Again, as we discussed earlier he was repeating the information he had been given and, at the time, was held to be the truth. Because, it does not support your position and does not say what you claimed, is why you dropped it.

Actually the harbor was easy to defend and all the Pacific Fleet commanders said so, and while "being closer to the only real enemy", it was still several thousand miles to the from the nearest large Japanese naval base.

With regards to your "questionable military value", you are obviously confused about naval doctrine of the United States in the pre-ww2 era. You have it reversed: The battleships were not to support the "faster" aircraft carriers, the "faster" aircraft carriers were to support the battleships. I do think the "faster" carriers can easily keep up with the battleships.

With regards to the battleships staying in San Diego. The training mission could be carried out anywhere, and has no bearing on the matter. you idea of San Diego being less dangerous, is only a supposition, not a fact. Had the battleships stayed in San Diego, who is to say that the Japanese would not have planned an attack there instead.

Also, the Japanese certainly had the capability to put many submarines off the West Coast, and did so very early in the war. So the risk is just as great from submarines at Pearl as it is at San Diego.

Look at why Richardson wanted the Fleet back on the West Coast; training, morale, and logistics. Only logistics has to do with naval doctrine, and that would be settled once an adequate reserve of material was built up. The other two have nothing to do with then current US naval doctrine. Knox's suggestion was a "knee jerk" reaction to the attack. After all, look at how the US built Pearl Harbor up during the Pacific War. It was "the" major US naval base in the Pacific.

 

OpanaPointer,

You may or may not be getting an e-mail from ww2aircraft.net then.
2 days, and no responses.


DogFather,

I find it interesting that you are critical of my use, in another thread, of Clausen's book "Final Judgement" with

Then you proceed to use said book as a source on another forum. So, if Clausen "is not right", why do you use him as a source?

Or, is it, that he is only wrong when he supports arguments that I make, and he is always right when he supports one of yours?

 

It Did 9/11/2001

 

I was thinking the same thing but dared not say it (FNG). Also to some extent, the barracks attack in Beirut, USS Cole, African Embassy bombings. All of those days - terribly tragic for the U.S.A.

 

Korea 1950 would also apply in some respects.

 

Some more:
Domestic Terrorism
Oklahoma City 4/19/1995
Military
Wacht am Rhein
1968 Tet Offensive

By their very nature surprise/sneak attacks are to be very difficult to detect. Just because were are vigilant and have "the cool toys", will make it more difficult for our enemies to carry out their attacks, but by no means impossible.

The problem, as always, with detection is "seperating the wheat from the chaff." Most often the evidence is found, however the trouble remains getting all the pieces to one person/agency who can make sense of it all. Despite past events, this still poses a problem today.

 

Did the British sighting of the Japanese invasion convoy headed for Malaysia add to sense of complacency at Pearl or was it pretty much ignored as being too far west?

 

I would think it added to the sense of complacency throughout the American chain-of-command. They knew a blow was coming, and the Japanese invasion convoy and it's anchorage were being kept an eye on. However, no one was 100 percent positive of it's destination - whether it was bringing reinforcements to French Indo-China or was to be an actual invasion of British territory. As a result, the British were uncertain as to how to react to the convoy. There course of action was very conservative, with only recon flights, and took no action that could be construed as offensive.

Still, the convoy did focus most, if not all the attention on that area. Although the Americans were greatly concerned about Guam, and to a lesser extent, the Philippines.

The distance between Pearl and Japan was seen as an insurmountable shield that was beyond Japanese capabilities. As such, Pearl was very unlikely to be the target of a major raid, but submarine attacks were still expected.

IMHO, the largest stumbling block was that the vast majority of Americans thought that the Japanese could not and would not attack Pearl Harbor. As I said earlier, it was thought to be beyond Japan's capability and, by attacking America, the Japanese would be committing an act that was tantamount to national suicide.

 

I wouldn't doubt that this also re-enforced the pre-war idea that Japan would be attacking to the south where it's natural resource needs were rather than the east, and if that was the case then having the fleet that many miles closer to the supposed upcoming battle around the Philippines was the RIGHT THING to do.

 

I have found two other sources:

> Dramaturgy > Japanese American History 12-15, 1941 - Without any evidence of sabotage, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox announces to the press, "I think the most effective Fifth Column work of the entire war was done in Hawaii..."

and

http://www.k12.wa.us/SocialStudies/civilliberties/AITWebArchive/curriculum/lesson05.pdf

2. Explain that after Pearl Harbor hysteria and paranoia swept through the United States. Public
officials made hostile or false statements about Japanese Americans. Tell students that on
December 15, 1941, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox held a press conference at which he said,
“I think the most effective ‘fifth column’ work of the entire war was done in Hawaii, with the
possible exception of Norway.” (You may want to explain that “fifth column” is a term used to
describe traitors or people who act subversively out of sympathy for an enemy to their country.)
Knox knew that Japanese Americans and Japanese resident aliens in Hawaii had not
assisted Japan, but he did not want the country to lose faith in the Navy. The U.S. Government
also knew that people of Japanese ancestry were innocent.

 

DogFather,

I am well aware of Knox's statement to the press. Many, such as yourself, throw the statement around to justify whatever ends they please, mostly to put a favorable light on the Japanese-Americans. Yet, NONE of them put the statement into context, other than to use it to support their own ends.

www.k12.wa.us is a prime example of this. Please note

yet Webster provides us with this definition

There is no mention of the word "traitor", so why, I ask you does k12.wa.us include it?

Further, note the passage

What www.k12.wa.us conveniently leaves out, is that there were a few members of the Japanese-American population, known to the FBI, that were, actively or suspectedly, involved in espionage on Pearl Harbor and it's surrounds.



Now, to put Knox's statement into context, from his "SECRET" report to Roosevelt, he wrote

(SECRET) REPORT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO THE PRESIDENT

As you can PLAINLY SEE, Knox is commenting on the intelligence work done by the Japanese, and not any "supposed" acts of sabotage that resulted in the damage or destruction of US property. However, he never explained this to the press and it is never mentioned in his "public" statement.


Now, I ask you once again for PROOF that what Knox stated was intentional and meant to mislead the public.

 

Now, now, Opana, play nice.

You see if DogFather, had the common sense God gave your average rock, he would have looked a little further than the first two pages Google returned. You see, Page 3 gave me this little gem.
HyperWar: Wartime Exile [Part 2]

from page 100-101

This is sourced to the Los Angeles Times Dec. 16, 1941. pt. I, p. 1

Thankfully, your probably the only online source that has this quote cited.

 

Wait...

Did I just defend DogFather from OpanaPointer...

But, I thought I was one of Opana's "cruisers and destroyers"...

Maybe DogFather does not know me as well as he thinks.



DogFather,

I have told you time and again to choose your sources better. Yet, you continually fail to heed my advice. A little more time and effort on your part will save you a lot of headaches in the future.