Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack Report of the Joint

Your relationship with government is simple: government knows everything about you, and you know nothing about government. In practice this means government can do whatever it wants to you before you know it's going to happen. Government policy makers think this is a good way of ensuring citizen compliance. Thus, all of these investigations are retrospective -- they look back at the squirrely shit that government has pulled, and occasionally wring their hands about trying to avoid it happening in the future. Not inspiring reading, but necessary if you are to face the cold reality that Big Brother is more than watching.

Re: Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack:Report of the J

Postby admin » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:13 am

ANNEX A 445

Draft Proposal Handed by Ambassador Nomura to Secretary Hull on May 12 (Washington time)

CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN

The Governments of the United States and of Japan accept joint responsibility for the initiation and conclusion of a general agreement disposing the resumption of our traditional friendly relations.

Without reference to specific causes of recent estrangement, it is the sincere desire of both Governments that the incidents which led to the deterioration of amicable sentiment among our peoples should be prevented from recurrence and corrected in their unforeseen and unfortunate consequences.

It is our present hope that, by a joint effort, our nations may establish a just peace in the Pacific; and by the rapid consummation of an *entente cordiale* [*amicable understanding*], arrest, if not dispel, the tragic confusion, that now threatens to engulf civilization.

For such decisive action, protracted negotiations would seem ill-suited and weakening. Both Governments, therefore, desire that adequate instrumentalities should be developed for the realization of a general agreement which would bind, meanwhile, both Governments in honor and in act.

It is our belief that such an understanding should comprise only the pivotal issues of urgency and not the accessory concerns which could be deliberated at a conference and appropriately confirmed by our respective Governments.

Both Governments presume to anticipate that they could achieve harmonious relations if certain situations and attitudes were clarified or improved; to wit:

1. The concepts of the United States and of Japan respecting international relations and the character of nations.

2. The attitude of both Governments toward the European War.

3. The relations of both nations toward the China Affair.

4. Commerce between both nations.

5. Economic activity of both nations in the Southwestern Pacific area.

6. The policies of both nations affecting political stabilization in the Pacific area.

Accordingly, we have come to the following mutual understanding:

I. The concepts of the United States and of Japan respecting international relations and the character of nations.

The Governments of the United States and of Japan jointly acknowledge each other as equally sovereign states and contiguous Pacific powers.

446 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

Both Governments assert the unanimity of their national policies as directed toward the foundation of a lasting peace and the inauguration of a new era of respectful confidence and cooperation among our peoples.

Both Governments declare that it is their traditional, and present, concept and conviction that nations and races compose, as members of a family, one household; each equally enjoying rights and admitting responsibilities with a mutuality of interests regulated by peaceful processes and directed to the pursuit of their moral and physical welfare, which they are bound to defend for themselves as they are bound not to destroy for others; they further admit their responsibilities to oppose the oppression or exploitation of backward nations.

Both Governments are firmly determined that their respective traditional concepts on the character of nations and the underlying moral principles of social order and national life will continue to be preserved and never transformed by foreign ideas or ideologies contrary to these moral principles and concepts.

II. The attitude of both Governments toward the European War.

The Governments of the United States and Japan make it their common aim to bring about the world peace; they shall therefore jointly endeavour not only to prevent further extension of the European War but also speedily to restore peace in Europe.

The Government of Japan maintains that its alliance with the Axis Powers was, and is, defensive and designed to prevent the nations which are not at present directly affected by the European War from engaging in it.

The Government of Japan maintains that its obligations of military assistance under the Tripartite Pact between Japan, Germany and Italy will be applied in accordance with the stipulation of Article 3 of the said Pact.

The Government of the United States maintains that its attitude toward the European War is, and will continue to be, directed by no such aggressive measures as to assist any one nation against another. The United States maintains that it is pledged to the hate of war, and accordingly, its attitude toward the European War is, and will continue to be, determined solely and exclusively by considerations of the protective defense of its own national welfare and security.

III. The relations of both nations toward the China Affair.

The Government of the United States, acknowledging the three principles as enunciated in the Konoe Statement and the principles set forth on the basis of the said three principles in the treaty with the Nanking Government as well as in the Joint Declaration of Japan, Manchoukuo and China and relying upon the policy of the Japanese Government to establish a relationship of neighborly friendship with China, shall forthwith request the Chiang Kai-shek regime to negotiate peace with Japan.

IV. Commerce between both nations.  

When official approbation to the present Understanding has been given by both Governments, the United States and Japan shall assure each other to mutually supply such commodities as are, respectively, available or required by either of them. Both Governments further consent to take necessary steps to the resumption of normal trade

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 447

relations as formerly established under the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United States and Japan.

V. Economic activity of both nations in the Southwestern Pacific area. Having in view that the Japanese expansion in the direction of the Southwestern Pacific area is declared to be of peaceful nature, American cooperation shall be given in the production and procurement of natural resources (such as oil, rubber, tin, nickel) which Japan needs.

VI. The policies of both nations affecting political stabilization in the Pacific area.

a. The Governments of the United States and Japan jointly guarantee the independence of the Philippine Islands on the condition that the Philippine Islands shall maintain a status of permanent neutrality. The Japanese subjects shall not be subject to any discriminatory treatment.

b. Japanese immigration to the United States shall receive amicable consideration on a basis of equality with other nationals and freedom from discrimination.

Addendum.

The present Understanding shall be kept a confidential memorandum between the Governments of the United States and of Japan.

The scope, character and timing of the announcement of this Understanding will be agreed upon by both Governments.

ORAL EXPLANATION FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL DRAFT

II. Par. 2.

Attitude of Both Governments toward the European War.

Actually the meaning of this paragraph is virtually unchanged but we desire to make it clearer by specifying a reference to the Pact. As long as Japan is a member of the Tripartite Pact, such stipulation as is mentioned in the Understanding seems unnecessary.

If we must have any stipulation at all, in addition, it would be important to have one which would clarify the relationship of this Understanding to the aforementioned Pact.

III.

China Affair.

The terms for China-Japan peace as proposed in the original Understanding differ in no substantial way from those herein affirmed as the "principles of Konoe." Practically, the one can be used to explain the other.

We should obtain an understanding, in a separate and secret document, that the United States would discontinue her assistance to the Chiang Kai-shek regime if Chiang Kai-shek does not accept the advice of the United States that he enter into negotiations for peace.

If, for any reason, the United States finds it impossible to sign such a documents a definite pledge by some highest authorities will suffice.

The three principles of Prince Konoe as referred to in this paragraph are:

1. Neighborly friendship;

2. Joint defense against communism;

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 448

3. Economic cooperation by which Japan does not intend to exercise economic monopoly in China nor to demand of China a limitation in the interests of Third Powers.

The following are implied in the aforesaid principles:

1. Mutual respect of sovereignty and territories;

2. Mutual respect for the inherent characteristics of each nation cooperating as good neighbors and forming a Far Eastern nucleus contributing to world peace;

3. Withdrawal of Japanese troops from Chinese territory in accordance with an agreement to be concluded between Japan and China;

4. No annexation, no indemnities;

5. Independence of Manchoukuo.

III.

Immigration to China.

The stipulation regarding large-scale immigration to China has been deleted because it might give an impression, maybe a mistaken impression, to the Japanese people who have been offended by the past immigration legislation of the United States, that America is now taking a dictating attitude even toward the question of Japanese immigration in China.

Actually, the true meaning and purpose of this stipulation is fully understood and accepted by the Japanese Government.

IV.

Naval, Aerial and Mercantile Marine Relations.

(a) and (c) of this section have been deleted not because of disagreement but because it would be more practical, and possible, to determine the disposition of naval forces and mercantile marine after an understanding has been reached and relations between our two countries improved; and after our present China commitments are eliminated. Then we will know the actual situation and can act accordingly.

Courtesy visit of naval squadrons.

This proposal, (b) of IV might better be made a subject of a separate memorandum. Particular care must be taken as to the timing, manner and scope of carrying out such a gesture.

V.  

Gold Credit.

The proposal in the second paragraph of V has been omitted for the same reasons as suggested the omission of paragraphs (a) and (c).

VI.

Activity in Southwestern Pacific Area.

The words, in the first paragraph, "without resorting to arms" have been deleted as inappropriate and unnecessarily critical. Actually, the peaceful policy of the Japanese Government has been made clear on many occasions in various statements made both by the Premier and the Foreign Minister.  

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 449

VIII. [VII]

Political Stabilization in the Pacific Area.

As the paragraph (a) implying military and treaty obligation would require, for its enactment, such a complicated legislative procedure in both countries, we consider it inappropriate to include this in the present Understanding.

Paragraph (b) regarding the independence of the Philippine Islands has been altered for the same reason.

In paragraph (c) [(d)] the words "and to the Southwestern Pacific Area" have been omitted because such questions should be settled, as necessity arises, through direct negotiation with the authorities in the Southwestern areas by the Government of the United States and of Japan respectively.

Conference.

The stipulation for holding a Conference has been deleted. We consider that it would be better to arrange, by an exchange of letters, that a conference between the President and the Premier or between suitable representatives of theirs will be considered when both the United States and Japan deem it useful to hold such a conference after taking into due consideration the effect resulting from the present Understanding.

Announcement.

In regard to the statement to be issued on the successful conclusion of the present Understanding a draft will be prepared in Tokio and cabled to Washington for the consideration of the United States Government.

(Ex. 29, Vol. II, pp. 420-425.)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack:Report of the J

Postby admin » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:17 am

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 450

ANNEX B

Draft Proposal Handed by Secretary Hull to Ambassador Nomura on June 21 (Washington time)

Unofficial, Exploratory And Without Commitment

[WASHINGTON,] June 21, 1941.

The Governments of the United States and of Japan accept joint responsibility for the initiation and conclusion of a general agreement of understanding as expressed in a joint declaration for the resumption of traditional friendly relations.

Without reference to specific causes of recent estrangement, it is the sincere desire of both Governments that the incidents which led to the deterioration of amicable sentiment between their countries should be prevented from recurrence and corrected in their unforeseen and unfortunate consequences.

It is our earnest hope that, by a cooperative effort, the United States and Japan may contribute effectively toward the establishment and preservation of peace in the Pacific area and, by the rapid consummation of an amicable understanding, encourage world peace and arrest, if not dispel, the tragic confusion that now threatens to engulf civilization.

For such decisive action, protracted negotiations would seem ill-suited and weakening. Both Governments, therefore, desire that adequate instrumentalities should be developed for the realization of a general understanding which would bind, meanwhile, both Governments in honor and in act.

It is the belief of the two Governments that such an understanding should comprise only the pivotal issues of urgency and not the accessory concerns which could be deliberated later at a conference.

Both Governments presume to anticipate that they could achieve harmonious relations if certain situations and attitudes were clarified or improved; to wit:

1. The concepts of the United States and of Japan respecting international relations and the character of nations.

2. The attitudes of both Governments toward the European war.

3. Action toward a peaceful settlement between China and Japan.

4. Commerce between both nations.

5 Economic activity of both nations in the Pacific area.

6 The policies of both nations affecting political stabilization in the Pacific area.

7. Neutralization of the Philippine Islands.

Accordingly, the Government of the United States and the Government of Japan have come to the following mutual understanding and declaration of policy:

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 451

I. The concepts of the United States and of Japan respecting international relations and the character of nations.  

Both governments affirm that their national policies are directed toward the foundation of a lasting peace and the inauguration of a new era of reciprocal confidence and cooperation between our peoples.

Both Governments declare that it is their traditional, and present concept and conviction that nations and races compose, as members of a family, one household living under the ideal of universal concord through justice and equity; each equally enjoying rights and admitting responsibilities with a mutuality of interests regulated by peaceful processes and directed to the pursuit of their moral and physical welfare, which they are bound to defend for themselves as they are bound not to destroy for others; they further admit their responsibilities to oppose the oppression or exploitation of other peoples.

Both Governments are firmly determined that their respective traditional concepts on the character of nations and the underlying moral principles of social order and national life will continue to be preserved and never transformed by foreign ideas or ideologies contrary to those moral principles and concepts.

II. The attitudes of both Governments toward the European war.

The Government of Japan maintains that the purpose of the Tripartite Pact was, and is, defensive and is designed to contribute to the prevention of an unprovoked extension of the European war.

The Government of the United States maintains that its attitude toward the European hostilities is and will continue to be determined solely and exclusively by considerations of protection and self-defense: its national security and the defense thereof.

NOTE (There is appended a suggested draft of an exchange of letters as a substitute for the Annex and Supplement on the Part of the Government of the United States on this subject which constituted a part of the United States draft of May 31, 1941.

III. Action toward a peaceful settlement between China and Japan.

The Japanese Government having communicated to the Government of the United States the general terms within the framework of which the Japanese Government will propose the negotiation of a peaceful settlement with the Chinese Government, which terms are declared by the Japanese Government to be in harmony with the Konoe principles regarding neighborly friendship and mutual respect of sovereignty and territories and with the practical application of those principles, the President of the United States will suggest to the Government of China that the Government of China and the Government of Japan enter into a negotiation on a basis mutually advantageous and acceptable for a termination of hostilities and resumption of peaceful relations.

NOTE (The foregoing draft of Section III is subject to further discussion of the question of cooperative defense against communistic activities, including the stationing of Japanese troops in Chinese territory, and the question of economic cooperation between China and Japan. With regard to suggestions that the, language of Section III be changed, it is believed that consideration of any suggested change can most advantageously be given

452 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

after all the points in the annex relating to this section have been satisfactorily worked out, when the section and its annex can, be viewed as a whole.)

IV. Commerce between both nations.

When official approbation to the present understanding has been given by both Governments, the United States and Japan shall assure each other mutually to supply such commodities as are, respectively, available and required by either of them. Both Governments further consent to take necessary steps to resume normal trade relations as formerly established under the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United States and Japan. If a new commercial treaty is desired by both Governments, it would be negotiated as soon as possible and be concluded in accordance with usual procedures.

V. Economic activity of both nations in the Pacific area.

On the basis of mutual pledges hereby given that Japanese activity and American activity in the Pacific area shall be carried on by peaceful means and in conformity with the principle of non-discrimination in international commercial relations, the Japanese Government and the Government of the United States agree to cooperate each with the other toward obtaining non-discriminatory access by Japan and by the United States to commercial supplies of natural resources (such as oil, rubber, tin, nickel) which each country needs for the safeguarding and development of its own economy.

VI. The policies of both nations affecting political stabilization in the Pacific area.

Both Governments declare that the controlling policy underlying this understanding is peace in the Pacific area; that it is their fundamental purpose, through cooperative effort, to contribute to the maintenance and the preservation of peace in the Pacific area; and that neither has territorial designs in the area mentioned.

VII. Neutralization of the Philippine Islands.

The Government of Japan declares its willingness to enter at such time as the Government of the United States may desire into negotiation with the Government of the United States with a view to the conclusion of a treaty for the neutralization of the Philippine Islands, when Philippine independence shall have been achieved.

[Annex 1 to Annex B]

ANNEX AND SUPPLEMENT ON THE PART OF THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT

III. Action toward a peaceful settlement between China and Japan.

The basic terms as referred to in the above section are as follows:

1. Neighborly friendship.

2. (Cooperative defense against injurious communistic activities including the stationing of Japanese troops in Chinese territory.) Subject to further discussion.

3. (Economic cooperation.) Subject to agreement on an exchange of letters in regard to the application to this point of the principle of non-discrimination in international commercial relations.

4. Mutual respect of sovereignty and territories.

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 453  

5. Mutual respect for the inherent characteristics of each nation cooperating as good neighbors and forming an East Asian nucleus contributing to world Peace.

6. Withdrawal of Japanese armed forces from Chinese territory as promptly as possible and in accordance with an agreement to be concluded between Japan and China.

7. No annexation.

8. No indemnities.

9. Amicable negotiation in regard to Manchoukuo.

[Annex 2 to Annex B]

ANNEX AND SUPPLEMENT ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES

IV. Commerce between both nations.

It is understood that during the present international emergency Japan and the United States each shall permit export to the other of commodities in amounts up to the figures of usual or pre-war trade, except, in the case of each, commodities which it needs for its own purposes of security and self-defense. These limitations are mentioned to clarify the obligations of each Government. They are not intended as restrictions against either Government; and, it is understood, both Governments will apply such regulations in the spirit dominating relations with friendly nations.

[Annex 3 to Annex B]

SUGGESTED EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE JAPANESE AMBASSADOR

The Secretary of State to the Japanese Ambassador:

EXCELLENCY: In Section II of the Joint Declaration which was entered into today on behalf of our two Governments, statements are made with regard to the attitudes of the two Governments toward the European war. During the informal conversations which resulted in the conclusion of this Joint Declaration I explained to you on a number of occasions the attitude and policy of the Government of the United States toward the hostilities in Europe and I pointed out that this attitude and policy were based on the inalienable right of self-defense. I called special attention to an address which I delivered on April 24 setting forth fully the position of this Government upon this subject.
I am sure that you are fully cognizant of this Government's attitude toward the European war but in order that there may be no misunderstanding I am again referring to the subject. I shall be glad to receive from you confirmation by the Government of Japan that, with regard to the measures which this nation may be forced to adopt in defense of its own security, which have been set forth as indicated, the Government of Japan is not under any commitment which would require Japan to take any action contrary to or destructive of the fundamental objective of the present agreement, to establish and to preserve peace in the Pacific area.

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

454 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

The Japanese Ambassador to the Secretary of State:

EXCELLENCY: I have received your letter of June .

I wish to state that my Government is fully aware of the attitude of the Government of the United States toward the hostilities in Europe as explained to me by you during our recent conversations and as set forth in your address of April 24. I did not fail to report to my Government the policy of the Government of the United States as it had been explained to me, and I may assure you that my Government understands and appreciates the attitude and position of the Government of the United States with regard to the European war.  

I wish also to assure you that the Government of Japan, with regard to the measures which the Government of the United States may be forced to adopt in defense of its own security, is not under any commitment requiring Japan to take any action contrary to or destructive of the fundamental objective of the present agreement

The Government of Japan, fully cognizant of its responsibilities freely assumed by the conclusion of this agreement, is determined to take no action inimical to the establishment and preservation of peace in the Pacific area.

Accept, Excellency, the assurances of my most distinguished consideration.

[Annex 4 to Annex B]

SUGGESTED LETTER To BE ADDRESSED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE JAPANESE AMBASSADOR IN CONNECTION WITH THE JOINT DECLARATION

EXCELLENCY: In the informal conversations which resulted in the conclusion of a general agreement of understanding between our two Governments, you and your associates expressed fully and frankly views on the intentions of the Japanese Government in regard to applying to Japan's proposed economic cooperation with China the principle of non- discrimination in international commercial relations. It is believed that it would be helpful if you could be so good as to confirm the statements already expressed orally in the form of replies on the following points:

1. Does the term "economic cooperation" between Japan and China contemplate the granting by the Government of China to the Japanese Government or its nationals of any preferential or monopolistic rights which would discriminate in favor of the Japanese Government and Japanese nationals as compared with the Government and nationals of the United States and of other third countries? Is it contemplated that upon the inauguration of negotiations for a peaceful settlement between Japan and China the special Japanese companies, such as the North China Development Company and the Central China Promotion Company and their subsidiaries, will be divested, in so far as Japanese official support may be involved, of any monopolistic or other preferential rights that they may exercise in fact or that may inure to them by virtue of present circumstances in areas of China under Japanese military occupation?

2. With regard to existing restrictions upon freedom of trade and travel by nationals of third countries in Chinese territory  

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 455

under Japanese military occupation, could the Japanese Government indicate approximately what restrictions will be removed immediately upon the entering into by the Government of Chungking of negotiations with the Government of Japan and what restrictions will be removed at later dates, with an indication in each case in so far as possible of the approximate time within which removal of restrictions would be effected?

3. Is it the intention of the Japanese Government that the Chinese Government shall exercise full and complete control of matters relating to trade, currency and exchange? Is it the intention of the Japanese Government to withdraw and to redeem the Japanese military notes which are being circulated in China and the notes of Japanese-sponsored regimes in China? Can the Japanese Government indicate how soon after the inauguration of the contemplated negotiations arrangements to the above ends can in its opinion be carried out?

It would be appreciated if as specific replies as possible could be made to the questions above listed.

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

(Ex. 29, Vol. II, pp. 486-492.)


PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 456
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack:Report of the J

Postby admin » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:17 am

ANNEX C

TEXT OF BASIC JAPANESE TERMS OF PEACE WITH CHINA

1. Neighborly friendship.

2. Respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.

3. Cooperative defense between Japan and China.

Cooperation between Japan and China for the purposes of preventing communistic and other subversive activities which may constitute a menace to the security of both countries and of maintaining the public order in China.

Stationing of Japanese troops and naval forces in certain areas in the Chinese territory for a necessary period for the purposes referred to above and in accordance with the existing agreements and usages.

4. Withdrawal of Japanese armed forces.

The Japanese armed forces which have been dispatched to China for carrying out the China Affairs will be withdrawn from China upon the settlement of the said Affairs, excepting those troops which come under point 3.

5. Economic cooperation.

(a) There shall be economic cooperation between Japan and China, having the development and utilization of essential materials for national defense in China as its principal objective.

(b) The preceding paragraph does not mean to restrict any economic activities by third Powers in China so long as they are pursued on an equitable basis.

6. Fusion of the Chiang Kai-shek regime and the Wang Ching-wei Government.

7 No annexation.

8 No indemnities.

9. Recognition of Manchoukuo. (Ex. 29, Vol. II, p. 633)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack:Report of the J

Postby admin » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:17 am

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 457

ANNEX D

Japanese Proposals Submitted to Secretary Hull on September 27

(Washington time)

The Governments of Japan and of the United States accent joint responsibility for the initiation and conclusion of a general agreement of understanding as expressed in a joint declaration for the resumption of traditional friendly relations.

Without reference to specific causes of recent estrangement, it is the sincere desire of both Governments that the incidents which led to the deterioration of the amicable sentiment between their countries should be prevented from recurrence and corrected in their unforeseen and unfortunate consequences.

It is the earnest hope of both Governments that, by a cooperative effort, Japan and the United States may contribute effectively toward the establishment and preservation of peace in the Pacific area and, by the rapid consummation of an amicable understanding, encourage world peace and arrest, if not dispel, the tragic confusion that now threatens to engulf civilization.

For such decisive action, protracted negotiations would seem ill-suited and weakening. Both Governments, therefore, desire that adequate instrumentalities should be developed for the realization of a general understanding which would bind, meanwhile, both Governments in honor and in act.

It is the belief of both Governments that such an understanding should comprise only the pivotal issues of urgency and not the accessory concerns which could be deliberated later at a conference.  

Both Governments presume to anticipate that they could achieve harmonious relations if certain situations and attitudes were clarified or improved; to wit:

1. The concepts of Japan and of the United States respecting international relations and the character of nations.

2. The attitudes of both Governments toward the European War.

3. Action toward a peaceful settlement between Japan and China.

4. Commerce between both nations.

5. Economic problems in the Southwestern Pacific area.

6. The policies of both nations affecting political stabilization in the Pacific area.

Accordingly, the Government of Japan and the Government of the United States have come to the following mutual understanding and declaration of policy:

I. The concepts of Japan and of the United States respecting international relations and the character of nations.

Both Governments affirm that their national policies are directed toward the foundation of a lasting peace and the inauguration of a

458 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

new era of reciprocal confidence and cooperation between the peoples of both countries.

Both Governments declare that it is their traditional, and present, concept and conviction that nations and races compose, as members of a family, one household living under the ideal of universal concord through justice and equity; each equally enjoying rights and admitting a responsibilities with a mutuality of interests regulated by peaceful processes and directed to the pursuit of their moral and physical welfare, which they are bound to defend for themselves as they are bound not to destroy for others; they further admit their responsibilities to oppose the oppression or exploitation of other peoples.

Both Governments are firmly determined that their respective traditional concepts on the character of nations and the underlying moral principles of social order and national life will continue to be preserved and never transformed by foreign ideas or ideologies contrary to those moral principles and concepts.

II. The attitudes of both Governments toward the European War.

Both Governments maintain it their common aim to bring about peace in the world, and, when an opportune time arrives, they will endeavor jointly for the early restoration of world peace
With regard to developments of the situation prior to the restoration of world peace, both Governments will be guided in their conduct by considerations of protection and self-defense; and, in case the United States should participate in the European War, Japan would decide entirely independently in the matter of interpretation of the Tripartite Pact between Japan, Germany and Italy, and would likewise determine what actions might be taken by way of fulfilling the obligations in accordance with the said interpretation.

III. Action toward a peaceful settlement between Japan and China.

Both Governments, taking cognizance of the fact that the settlement of the China Affair has a vital bearing upon the peace of the entire Pacific area and consequently upon that of the world, will endeavor to expedite a rapid realization of the settlement of the said Affair.

The Government of the United States, recognizing the effort and the sincere desire on the part of the Japanese Government concerning the peaceful settlement of the China Affair, will, with the intention of facilitating the realization of the settlement, render its good offices in order that the Chungking Government may promptly enter into negotiations with the Government of Japan for a termination of hostilities and a resumption of peaceful relations, and will refrain from resorting to any measures and actions which might hamper the measures and efforts of the Government of Japan directed toward the settlement of the China Affair.

The Government of Japan maintains that the basic general terms of peace for the settlement of the China Affair will be in harmony with the principles embodied in the Konoye statement, and those agreements between Japan and China and those matters which have been put into effect in accordance with the said statement; that the economic cooperation between Japan and China will be carried on by peaceful means and in conformity with the principle of non-discrimination in the international commercial relations and also with

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 459

the principle of especially close relationship which is natural between neighboring countries; and that the economic activities of third Powers in China will not be excluded so long as they are pursued on an equitable basis.

NOTE: There is appended a draft of the basic terms of peace between Japan and China.  

IV. Commerce between Japan and the United States.

Both Governments agree to take without delay measures necessary for resuming normal trade relations between the two countries.

Both Governments guarantee each other that they will, as the first of the measures envisaged in the preceding paragraph, discontinue immediately the measures of freezing assets now being enforced, and that they will supply mutually such commodities as are, respectively, available and required by either of them.
V. Economic problems in the Southwestern Pacific area.

Both Governments mutually pledge themselves that the economic activities of Japan and the United States in the Southwestern Pacific area shall be carried on by peaceful means and in conformity with the principle of non-discrimination in the international commercial relations in pursuance of the policy stated in the preceding paragraph, both Governments agree to cooperate each with the other towards the creation of conditions of international trade and international investment under which both countries will have a reasonable opportunity to secure through the trade process the means of acquiring those goods and commodities which each country needs for the safeguarding and development of its own economy.

Both Governments will amicably cooperate for the conclusion and execution of agreements with the Powers concerned in regard to the production and supply, on the basis of non-discrimination, of such specific commodities as oil, rubber, nickel, and tin.

VI. The policies of both nations affecting political stabilization in the Pacific area.

Both Governments, taking cognizance of the fact that it is a matter of vital importance to stabilize promptly the situation in the Southwestern Pacific area, undertake not to resort to any measures and actions which may jeopardize such stabilization. The Government of Japan will not make any armed advancement, using French Indochina as a base, to any adjacent area thereof (excluding China), and upon the establishment of an equitable peace in the Pacific area, will withdraw its troops which are now stationed in French Indochina.

The Government of the United States will alleviate its military measures in the Southwestern Pacific area.

Both Governments declare that they respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Thailand and Netherland East Indies, and that they are prepared to conclude an agreement concerning the neutralization of the Philippine Islands when its independence will have been achieved.

The Government of the United States guarantees non-discriminatory treatment of the Japanese nationals in the Philippine Islands.

[Here follows text of basic terms of peace between Japan and China set forth in Annex C above.]

(Ex. 29, Vol. II, pp. 637-640.)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack:Report of the J

Postby admin » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:20 am

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 460

ANNEX E

(TEXT OF JAPANESE GOVERNMENTS REPLY TO UNITED STATES NOTE OF NOVEMBER 26, 1941, AS INTERCEPTED AND DECODED IN WASHINGTON PRIOR TO DELIVERY TO SECRETARY HULL BY THE JAPANESE AMBASSADORS)

(Part 1 of 14)

MEMORANDUM


1. The Government of Japan, prompted by a genuine desire to come to an amicable understanding with the Government of the United States in order that the two countries by their joint efforts may secure the peace of the Pacific area and thereby contribute toward the realization of world peace, has continued negotiations with the utmost sincerity since April last with the Government of the United States regarding the adjustment and advancement of Japanese-American relations and the stabilization of the Pacific area.

The Japanese Government has the honor to state frankly its views, concerning the claims the American Government has persistently maintained as well as the measures the United States and Great Britain have taken toward Japan during these eight months.

2. It is the immutable policy of the Japanese Government to insure the stability of East Asia and to promote world peace, and thereby to enable all nations to find each its proper place in the world.

Ever since the China Affair broke out owing to the failure on the part of China to comprehend Japan's true intentions, the Japanese Government has striven for the restoration of peace and it has consistently exerted its best efforts to prevent the extension of war-like disturbances. It was also to that end that in September last year Japan concluded the Tri Partite Pact with Germany and Italy.

(Part 2 of 14)

However, both the United States and Great Britain have resorted to every possible measure to assist the Chungking regime so as to obstruct the establishment of a general peace between Japan and China, interfering with Japan's constructive endeavours toward the stabilization of East Asia, exerting pressure on The Netherlands East Indies, or menacing French Indo-China, they have attempted to frustrate Japan's aspiration to realize the ideal of common prosperity in cooperation with these regions. Furthermore, when Japan in accordance with its protocol with France took measures of joint defense of French Indo-China, both American and British governments, willfully misinterpreted it as a threat to their own possession and inducing the Netherlands government to follow suit, they enforced the assets freezing order, thus severing economic relations with Japan. While manifesting thus an obviously hostile attitude, these countries

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 461

have strengthened their military preparations perfecting an encirclement of Japan, and have brought about a situation which endangers the very existence of the empire.

(Part 3 of 14)

Nevertheless, facilitate a speedy settlement, the Premier of Japan proposed, in August last, to meet the President of the United States for a discussion of important problems between the two countries covering the entire Pacific area. However, while accepting in principle the Japanese proposal, insisted that the meeting should take place after an agreement of view had been reached on fundamental (75 letters garbled) The Japanese government submitted a proposal based on the formula proposed by the American government, taking fully into consideration past American claims and also incorporating Japanese views. Repeated discussions proved of no avail in producing readily an agreement of view. The present cabinet, therefore, submitted a revised proposal, moderating still further the Japanese claims regarding the principal points of difficulty in the negotiation and endeavoured strenuously to reach a settlement. But the American government, adhering steadfastly to its original proposal failed to display in the slightest degree a spirit of conciliation. The negotiation made no progress.

(Part 4 of 14)

Thereupon, the Japanese Government, with a view to doing its utmost for averting a crisis in Japanese-American relations, submitted on November 20th still another proposal in order to arrive at an equitable solution of the more essential and urgent questions which, simplifying its previous proposal, stipulated the following points:

(1) The Governments of Japan and the United States undertake not to dispatch armed forces into any of the regions, excepting French Indo- China, in the Southeastern Asia and the Southern Pacific area.

(2) Both Governments shall cooperate with a view to securing the acquisition in the Netherlands East Indies of those goods and commodities of which the two countries are in need.

(3) Both Governments mutually undertake to restore commercial relations to those prevailing prior to the freezing of assets.

The Government of the United States shall supply Japan the required quantity of oil.

(4) The Government of the United States undertakes not to resort to measures and actions prejudicial to the endeavours for the restoration of general peace between Japan and China.

(5) The Japanese Government undertakes to withdraw troops now stationed in French Indo-China upon either the restoration of peace between Japan and China or the establishment of an equitable peace in the Pacific area; and it is prepared to remove the Japanese troops in the southern part of French Indo-China to the northern part upon the conclusion of the present agreement.

462 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

(Part 5 of 14)

As regards China, the Japanese Government, while expressing its readiness to accept the offer of the President of the United States to act as "Introducer" of peace between Japan and China as was previously suggested, asked for an undertaking on the part of the United States to do nothing prejudicial to the restoration of Sino-Japanese peace when the two parties have commenced direct negotiations.

The American government not only rejected the above-mentioned new proposal, but made known its intention to continue its aid to Chiang Kai-shek; and in spite of its suggestion mentioned above, withdrew the offer of the President to act as the so called "Introducer" of peace between Japan and China, pleading that time was not yet ripe for it. Finally, on November 26th, in an attitude to impose upon the Japanese government those principles it has persistently maintained, the American government made a proposal totally ignoring Japanese claims, which is a source of profound regret to the Japanese Government.

(Part 6 of 14)

4. From the beginning of the present negotiation the Japanese Government has always maintained an attitude of fairness and moderation, and did its best to reach a settlement, for which it made all possible concessions often in spite of great difficulties.

As for the China question which constituted an important subject of the negotiation, the Japanese Government showed a most conciliatory attitude.  

As for the principle of Non-Discrimination in International Commerce, advocated by the American Government, the Japanese Government expressed its desire to see the said principle applied throughout the world, and declared that along with the actual Practice of this principle in the world, the Japanese Government would endeavor to apply the same in the Pacific area, including China, and made it clear that Japan had no intention of excluding from China economic activities of third powers pursued on an equitable basis.

Furthermore, as regards the question of withdrawing troops from French Indo-China, the Japanese government even volunteered, as mentioned above, to carry out an immediate evacuation of troops from Southern French Indo-China as a measure of easing the situation.

(Part 7 of 14)

It is presumed that the spirit of conciliation exhibited to the utmost degree by the Japanese Government in all these matters is fully appreciated by the American government.

On the other hand, the American government, always holding fast to theories in disregard of realities, and refusing to yield an inch on its impractical principles, caused undue delays in the negotiation. It is difficult to understand this attitude of the American government and the Japanese government desires to call the attention of the American government especially to the following points:

1. The American government advocates in the name of world peace those principles favorable to it and urges upon the Japanese government the acceptance thereof. The peace of the world may be brought

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 463

about only by discovering a mutually acceptable formula through recognition of the reality of the situation and mutual appreciation of one another's position. An attitude such as ignores realities and imposes one's selfish views upon others will scarcely serve the purpose of facilitating the consummation of negotiations.

(Part 8 of 14)

Of the various principles put forward by the American government as a basis of the Japanese-American agreement, there are some which the Japanese government is ready to accept in principle, but in view of the world's actual conditions, it seems only a Utopian ideal, on the part of the American government, to attempt to force their immediate adoption.

Again, the proposal to conclude a multilateral non-aggression pact between Japan, the United States, Great Britain, China, the Soviet Union, The Netherlands, and Thailand, which is patterned after the old concept of collective security, is far removed from the realities of East Asia.

The American proposal contains a stipulation which states: "Both governments will agree that no agreement, which either has concluded with any third powers, shall be interpreted by it in such a way as to conflict with the fundamental purpose of this agreement, the establishment and preservation of peace throughout the Pacific area." It is presumed that the above provision has been proposed with a view to restrain Japan from fulfilling its obligations under the Tripartite Pact when the United States participates in the war in Europe, and, as such, it cannot be accepted by the Japanese Government.

(Part 9 of 14)

The American Government, obsessed with its own views and opinions, may be said to be scheming for the extension of the war. While it seeks, on the one hand, to secure its rear by stabilizing the Pacific area, it is engaged. On the other hand, in aiding Great Britain and preparing to attack, in the name of self-defense, Germany and Italy, two powers that are striving to establish a new order in Europe. Such a policy is totally at variance with the many principles upon which the American Government proposes to found the stability of the Pacific area through peaceful means.

3. Where as the American Government, under the principles it rigidly upholds, objects to settling international issues through military pressure, it is exercising in conjunction with Great Britain and other nations pressure by economic power. Recourse to such pressure as a means of dealing with international relations should be condemned as it is at times more inhuman than military pressure.

(Part 10 of 14)

4. It is impossible not to reach the conclusion that the American Government desires to maintain and strengthen, in collusion with Great Britain and other powers, its dominant position it has hitherto occupied not only in China but in other areas of East Asia. It is a

464 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

fact of history that one countr (45 letters garbled or missing) been compelled to observe the status quo under the Anglo-American policy of imperialistic exploitation and to sacrifice the es to the prosperity of the two nations. The Japanese Government cannot tolerate the perpetuation of such a situation since it directly runs counter to Japan's fundamental policy to enable all nations to enjoy each its proper place in the world.

(Part 11 of 14)

The stipulation proposed by the American Government relative to French Indo-China is a good exemplification of the above-mentioned American policy. That the six countries, Japan, the United States, Great Britain, The Netherlands, China and Thailand,-excepting France, should undertake among themselves to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of French Indo-China and equality of treatment in trade and commerce would be tantamount to placing that territory under the joint guarantee of the governments of those six countries. Apart from the fact that such a proposal totally ignores the position of France, it is unacceptable to the Japanese government in that such an arrangement cannot but be considered as an extension to French Indo-China of a system similar to the n (50 letters missed) sible for the present predicament of East Asia.

(Part 12 of 14)

5. All the items demanded of Japan by the American government regarding China such as wholesale evacuation of troops or unconditional application of the principle of Non-Discrimination in International Commerce ignore the actual conditions of China, and are calculated to destroy Japan's position as the stabilizing factor of East Asia. The attitude of the American government in demanding Japan not to support militarily, politically or economically any regime other than the regime at Chunking, disregarding thereby the existence of the Nanking government, shatters the very basis of the present negotiation. This demand of the American government falling, as it does, in line with its above-mentioned refusal to cease from aiding the Chunking regime, demonstrates clearly the intention of the American government to obstruct the restoration of normal relations between Japan and China and the return of peace to East Asia.

(Part 13 of 14)

5. In brief, the American proposal contains certain acceptable items such as those concerning commerce, including the conclusion of a trade agreement, mutual removal of the freezing restrictions, and stabilization of the Yen and Dollar exchange, or the abolition of extraterritorial rights in China. On the other hand, however, the proposal in question ignores Japan's sacrifices in the four years of the China Affair, menaces the empire's existence itself and disparages its honour and prestige. Therefore, viewed in its entirety, the Japanese government regrets that it cannot accept the proposal as a basis of negotiation.

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 465

6. The Japanese government, in its desire for an early conclusion of the negotiation, proposed that simultaneously with the conclusion of the Japanese-American negotiation, agreements be signed, with Great Britain and other interested countries. The proposal was accepted by the American government. However, since the American government has made the proposal of November 26th as a result of frequent consultations with Great Britain, Australia, The Netherlands and Chunking, ANDND* presumably by catering to the wishes of the Chungking regime on the questions of CHTUAL YLOKMMTT** be concluded that. All these countries are at one with the United States in ignoring Japan's position.

(Part 14 of 14)

7. Obviously it is the intention of the American Government to conspire with Great Britain and other countries to obstruct Japan's efforts toward the establishment of peace through the creation of a New Order in East Asia, and especially to preserve Anglo-American rights and interests by keeping Japan and China at war. This intention has been revealed clearly during the course of the present negotiations. Thus, the earnest hope of the Japanese Government to adjust Japanese-American relations and to preserve and promote the peace of the Pacific through cooperation with the American Government has finally been lost.

The Japanese Government regrets to have to notify hereby the American Government that in view of the attitude of the American Government it cannot but consider that it is impossible to reach an agreement through further negotiations.

(Ex. 1, pp. 239-245)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack:Report of the J

Postby admin » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:25 am

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 467
APPENDIX E
THE "WINDS CODE"
PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 468
APPENDIX E
THE "WINDS CODE"

Page Establishment and nature of the "Winds code" ...................... 469
Efforts to monitor ................................................ 471
Considerations bearing on the possibility of a message in execution of the "Winds code" having been received prior to December 7, 1941 ............................................... 471
Considerations militating against likelihood of "Winds code" execute message having been received prior to December 7, 1941 . 475

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 469

APPENDIX E

THE "WINDS CODE"

ESTABLISHMENT AND NATURE OF "WINDS CODE"

The "Winds code" was established and confirmed by five communications, two of which were processed by the Navy; i. e., Circulars 2353 and 2354, as follows: [1]

"From: Tokyo
"To: Washington
"19 November 1941
"Circular #2353

"Regarding the broadcast of a special message in an emergency.

"In case of emergency (danger of cutting off our diplomatic relations), and the cutting off of international communications, the following warnings will be added in the middle of the daily Japanese-language short-wave news broadcast.

"(1) In case of a Japan-U. S. relations in danger: HIGASHI NO KAZEAME.*

"(2) Japan-U. S. S. R. relations: KITANOKAZE KUMORI.**

"(3) Japan-British relations: NISHI NO KAZE HARE.***

"This signal will be given in the middle and at the end as a weather forecast and each sentence will be repeated twice. When this is heard please destroy all code papers, etc. This is as yet to be a completely secret arrangement.

"Forward as urgent intelligence.

"25432

"JD-1: 6875 (Y) Navy Trans. 11-28-41 (S-TT)"

*East wind, rain
**North wind, cloudy
***West wind, clear
 
"From: Tokyo
"To: Washington
"19 November 1941
"Circular #2354  

"When our diplomatic relations are becoming dangerous, we will add the following at the beginning and end of our general intelligence broadcasts:

"(1) If it is Japan-U. S. Relations, "HIGASHI".

"(2) Japan-Russia relations, "KITA".

"(3) Japan-British relations (including Thai, Malaya, and N. E. I.); "NISHI".

"The above will be repeated five times and included at beginning and end.

"Relay to Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, San Francisco.

"25392

"JD-1: 6850 (Y) Navy Trans. 11-2641 (S)"

By way of confirming the winds code and reflecting its nature the following dispatch, No. 281430, was received from the Commander in chief of the Asiatic Fleet: [2]

[1] Committee exhibit No. 1, pp. 154, 155.
[2] Id., No. 142
470 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

TOP SECRET

28 NOVEMBER 1941
FROM: CINCAF [3]
ACTION: OPNAV 4
INFO: COMSIXTEEN CINCPAC COMFOURTEEN [5]
281430
FOLLOWING TOKYO TO NET INTERCEPT TRANSLATION RECEIVED FROM SINGAPORE X IF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS ARE ON VERGE OF BEING SEVERED FOLLOWING WORDS REPEATED FIVE TIMES AT BEGINNING AND END OF ORDINARY TOKYO NEWS BROADCASTS WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANCE AS FOLLOWS X HIGASHI HIGASHI JAPANESE AMERICAN X KITA KITA RUSSIA X NISHA NISHI ENGLAND INCLUDING OCCUPATION OF THAI OR INVASION OF MALAYA AND NEI XX ON JAPANESE LANGUAGE FOREIGN NEWS BROADCASTS THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES REPEATED TWICE IN THE MIDDLE AND TWICE AT THE END OF BROADCASTS WILL BE USED XX AMERICA HIGASHI NO KAZE KUMORI [6] XX ENGLAND X NISHI NO KAZE HARE X UNQUOTE X BRITISH AND COMSIXTEEN MONITORING ABOVE BROADCASTS

Two further dispatches relate significantly to the winds code, the first from Consul General Foote, our senior diplomatic representative in the Netherlands East Indies, the second from Colonel Thorpe, our senior Army intelligence officer in Java. [7]

"TELEGRAM RECEIVED

"BF

"This telegram must be "closely paraphrased be- "fore being communicated "to anyone. (SC)

FROM  Batavia
Dated December 4, 1941
Rec'd. 9:19 a. M.
"Secretary of State,
" Washington.
" 220, December 4, 10 a. m.
"War Department at Bandoeng claims intercepted and decoded following "from Ministry Foreign Affairs Tokyo:

" "When crisis leading to worst arises following will be broadcast at end weather reports; one east wind rain war with United States, two north wind cloudy war with Russia, three west wind clear war with Britain including attack on Thailand or Malaya and Dutch Indies. If spoken twice burn codes and secret papers."

"Same re following Japanese Ambassador Bangkok to Consul General Batavia:

" "When threat of crises exists following will be used five times in texts of general reports and radio broadcasts: one Higashi east America, two Kita north Russia, three Nishi west Britain with advance into Thailand and attack on Malaya and Dutch Indies."

"Thorpe and Slawson cabled the above to War Department. I attach little or no importance to it and view it with some suspicion. Such have been common since 1936.

"HSM FOOTE"

[3] Commander in chief. Asiatic Fleet.
[4] Office of Naval Operations.
[5] Commandant Sixteenth Naval District; commander in chief, Pacific Fleet; commandant, Fourteenth Naval District.
[6] It is to be noted that, apparently through inadvertence in transmitting the message, the code phrase referring to Russian has been improperly commingled with that referring to the United States.
[7] See committee exhibit No. 142.

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 471

FROM ALUSNA BATAVIA OPNAV RRRRR
DATE 5 DEC 1941 [8]
DECODED BY KALAIDJIAN
PARAPHRASED BY PURDY  
031030 CR0222
FROM THORPE FOR MILES WAR DEPT. CODE INTERCEPT: JAPAN
WILL NOTIFY HER CONSULS OF WAR DECISION IN HER FOREIGN BROADCASTS AS WEATHER REPORT AT END. EAST WIND RAIN XXXXXX UNITED STATES: NORTH WIND CLOUDY RUSSIA: WEST WIND CLEAR ENGLAND WITH ATTACK ON THAILAND MALAY AND DUTCH EAST INDIES. WILL BE REPEATED TWICE OR MAY USE COMPASS DIRECTIONS ONLY. IN THIS CASE WORDS WILL BE INTRODUCED FIVE TIMES IN GENERAL TEXT.

(Signature illegible)

DISTRIBUTION:

WAR DEPT. ACTION FILES: CNO 20OP 20A RECORD COPY: 20C X SHOW OPDO

TOP SECRET SECRET


EFFORTS TO MONITOR

The evidence is undisputed that both services extended themselves in an effort to intercept a message, in execution of the winds code, not only through their own monitoring stations but through facilities of the Federal Communications Commission as well. While only fragmentary evidence of a documentary nature is available to indicate the nature of instructions to monitor for an implementing or execute message, the Federal Communications Commission file is complete and, as indicated, there is no contention that every effort was not made to intercept an execute message. [9]

CONSIDERATIONS BEARING ON THE POSSIBILITY OF A MESSAGE IN EXECUTION OF THE "WINDS CODE" HAVING BEEN RECEIVED PRIOR TO DECEMBER 7, 1941

1. Capt. L. F. Safford in a prepared statement (read before the joint committee) [10] has set forth a positive assertion that a winds execute message was received in the Navy Department *on the morning of December 4, 1941,* and has elaborated on the circumstances which serve, in his opinion, to indicate that a winds execute was dispatched and why such a message would have been dispatched from Tokyo.

Safford asserted that when he first saw the message it had already been translated by Kramer; that Kramer had underscored all three "code phrases" on the original incoming teletype sheet; and that he had written in pencil or colored crayon the free translation: "War with England (including NEI, [11] etc.); war with the U. S.; peace with Russia." Safford has persistently testified that an authentic implementing message was received.

[8] It is to be noted that this message bears the date December 5, 1941, whereas the "number group" is 031030, indicating December 3, 1941. From evidence available (see discussion, infra) it appears this message was dispatched from Batavia on December 3, 1941, but was not processed in the Navy Department until December 5, 1941, Inasmuch as the message was sent "deferred."

[9] See committee record, pp. 9809, 9810.

[10] Id., at pp. 9622-9654.

[11] Netherlands East Indies.

472 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

2. Capt. A. D. Kramer testified before the committee that *on the morning of December 5* the GY Watch Officer, thought by him possibly to be Lieutenant Murray, came to the door of his office and showed him a message which he, Kramer, regarded as an implementation of the winds code; that he saw this message only briefly, relying on the evaluation of the GY watch officer as to the authenticity of the message; that he had no recollection of writing on the message but that had he written anything he positively would not have used the word "war"; that he proceeded to Captain Safford's office with the GY watch officer when the message was delivered to Safford; that he never saw the message again. [12]

It should be noted that Kramer testified the message he saw was on a piece of teletype paper torn off from the machine and was not more than a line or two, possibly three lines; that in no case did the message contain some 200 words as alleged by Captain Safford in his statement. [13] Further, that the message he saw referred to only one country, which to the best of his belief was England. [14] This testimony must, of course, be considered along with Kramer's testimony before the Navy Court of Inquiry. When asked what Japanese language words were used in the execute message he saw, he replied: [15] "*Higashi No Kazeame*, I am quite certain. The literal meaning of *Higashi No Kazeame* is East Wind, Rain. That is plain Japanese language. The sense of that, however, meant strained relations or a break in relations, possibly even implying war with a nation to the eastward, the United States."

3. Admiral R. E. Ingersoll testified that during December of 1941 he was Assistant Chief of Naval Operations; that he saw "messages" which were supposed to implement the winds code, they being brought to his office; that he did not recall definitely whether he saw them prior to December 7 or thereafter; that an implementation of the code received prior to December 7, if genuine, would simply have confirmed what had already been dispatched to the Fleet regarding destruction of codes by the Japanese and would have required no action; that he thought the message he saw referred to all three countries; i.e. England, United States, and Russia. [16]"

4. Col. Otis K. Sadtler, in charge of the military branch of the Army Signal Corps in December of 1941, testified that about 9 a. m. or shortly thereafter on Friday, December 5, Admiral Noyes telephoned him to the effect that the "message was in" (referring to an implementing winds message); that Noyes told him "it was the word that implied a break in relations between Japan and Great Britain"; that he went to General Miles' office, informing Miles that the "word was in"; that Miles sent for Colonel Bratton and when Bratton came in, he, Sadtler, told Bratton word had been received from Admiral Noyes to the effect that diplomatic relations between Japan and Great Britain were in danger; that Bratton asked him to verify receipt of the message; that he called Admiral Noyes again, asking him to verify the "Japanese word" and Noyes replied that he did not know any Japanese but it was the one that "meant Japan and Great Britain"; that upon reporting this information to General Miles'

[12] Committee record, pp. 10481 et seq.
[13] Id., at p. 10491.
[14] Id., at p. 10501.
[15] Navy court of inquiry (top secret) record, p. 957.
[16] Committee record, pp. 11278 et seq.

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 473

office he did not thereafter get in touch with Admiral Noyes concerning the message; that he never saw the message Noyes reported to him; and that insofar as he could ascertain it did "not come over", i. e. to his office or the Army. [17]

5. Col. Rufus S. Bratton, Chief of the Far Eastern Section of the Intelligence Branch of the Military Intelligence Division in December of 1941, testified that sometime around 9 or 10 a. m. on the morning of December 5 he was called to General Miles' office where Sadtler stated Noyes had just called to say "it is in" (the winds execute message); that Miles, at his suggestion, requested Sadtler to get from Noyes a copy either of the Japanese text or of the English translation so a determination could be made as to whether the message was a genuine execute or another false alarm; that he did not again see Sadtler concerning the matter; that he, Bratton, called up the Navy, talking to either Captain McCollum or Kramer to inquire if they had received a winds execute message and was advised that no such message had been received; that he contacted Army SIS [18] and was likewise advised that no execute had been received; that the Army continued to monitor for an implementing message up to and after the December 7 attack. [19]

6. Admiral Richmond K. Turner, Chief of War Plans in December of 1941, testified before the committee as follows:

"On Friday afternoon, I think it was, of December 5, Admiral Noyes called on the telephone or the interphone, I do not know which, and said "The weather message", or words to this effect, "the first weather message has come in" and I said, "What did it say?" And he said, "North wind clear." And I said, "Well, there is something wrong about that," and he said, "I think so, too", and he hung up

"I never saw a draft of that, I do not know from my own knowledge where he got it from. I assumed until recently that it it was an authentic message. From what I can determine since coming back here it was something entirely different, but it was never told to me. If it had come in and had been authentic I am certain that I would have received a copy of it."  

Turner testified that he did not see an implementation of the winds code applying to the United States. [20]

7. To complete the picture it would seem apropos to set forth the testimony of Rear Adm. Leigh Noyes at this point.

Noyes, in December of 1941, Director of Naval Communications, testified before the committee that prior to December 7, 1941, no genuine winds execute message was brought to him of to his attention by anyone in the Navy Department; that prior to the Pearl Harbor attack there were several instances when messages were brought to him which were first thought to be winds execute messages but were determined not to be genuine; that the message described by Captain Safford in his statement, if received, would not have been regarded as an authentic execute message since (1) it is alleged to have been in Morse code and not by voice (2) no provision was made for a negative expression in the winds code (3) an execute would not have been

[17] Id., at pp. 12357-12363.
[18] Signal Intelligence Service.
[19] Committee record. Pp. 12068-12077:

Colonel Bratton testified: "I can state most positively that no execute of the winds codes was ever received by me prior to the attack on Pearl E[arbor. I find it hard to believe that any such execute message could get into the War Department without passing over my desk.

"It is inconceivable to me. I might have missed it but I had some assistants who were on the watch for it, and there were some people in the Army SIS who were also on the watch for it. They couldn't all have missed it. It is simply inconceivable to me that such a message could have been in the War Department without some one of us knowing about it or seeing it." Committee record, p. 12089.

[20] Committee record, p. 5214.  

474 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

interpreted to mean war, and (4) Circular 2353 made no provision for N. E. I. as stated by Safford.

With respect to Colonel Sadtler's testimony that Noyes called him saying "The message is in," or words to that effect, Noyes stated he had no present recollection of having made such a statement although he would not say it did not occur inasmuch as he talked with the chief signal officer a number of times each day. [21]

Further, Noyes testified that he was directed to prepare a folder for the Roberts Commission but that it did not include a winds execute message and the folder in fact was supposed to contain no magic nor any reference to it; that the McCollum message, [22] to his knowledge, contained no reference to a winds execute message. [23]

8. The "Rochefort Message."

On December 5, 1941, a dispatch signed "Miles" was sent by the War Department to the assistant chief of staff headquarters G-2, Hawaiian Department, as follows: [24]

"Contact Commander Rochefort immediately thru Commandant Fourteen Naval District regarding broadcasts from Tokyo reference weather."

At first blush, the foregoing dispatch would suggest, inferentially at least, the possibility of an execute message having been received. Colonel Bratton, upon whose recommendation the dispatch was sent, testified, however: [26]

"I had a discussion with Commander McCollum, now Captain McCollum, as to the amount of knowledge that the Navy had in Hawaii. He assured me his man Rochefort there at that time knew practically everything that there was to be known about the U. S.-Japanese relations through one means or another. I knew that suitable warning messages had been sent out to Hawaii and elsewhere. I had not read the messages and did not know their exact contents. I wanted to make sure that our G-2 in Hawaii got in touch with the ONI man in Hawaii, to get from him all the intelligence that he had in his possession, and I knew that if they got together on the subject of this winds message I did not know, but I felt that they were going from there, and that there would be a complete exchange of intelligence and that the Army G-2 would then be in possession of just as much intelligence as Rochefort, the ONI man, had."

Colonel Bratton's testimony is to the effect that the dispatch of the message to G-2 to contact Rochefort had nothing whatever to do with receipt of a message in execution of the winds code. In this regard Captain McCollum stated: [26]

"I understood that G-2 was very anxious for their G-2 in Hawaii to have direct access with Commander Rochefort, who had the only agency capable of intercepting the winds message in Hawaii, sir. The Army, as I understand it, had no parallel set-up in Hawaii at that time."

[21] In a statement submitted to the committee under date of February 25 1946, in amplification of his testimony Admiral Noyes said: "In reading over my testimony I noted that I failed to bring out the following point, which, however, is supported by my previous testimony and by documentary evidence.

"In connection with the alleged telephone conversation with me on 5 December to which Colonel Sadtler testified and which I did not recall in that form:

"On 5 December there was received from Colonel Thorpe in Batavia addressed to General Miles in the War Department. This message was transmitted by the Naval Attache to Nary Department for delivery to General Miles. As I have already testified the subject matter was under discussion between me and the War Department during that day. It is very probable that I would have called Colonel Sadtler and notified him of the fact that this message had been received and was being delivered to the War Department for General Miles on account of its importance. Since discussion took place between me and the War Department during that day on the subject matter of this message and the War Department recommended that we should make no change in our original translation of the set-up of the Winds Code (see previous testimony), it would appear that any possible authentic or false execute of the winds message would have also been discussed and settled during that day." Committee record pp. 14101, 14102.

[22] See discussion, infra
[23] Committee record, pp. 12605-12620.
[24] Committee exhibit No. 32 p 20.
[25] Committee record p. 12120, 12121.
[26] Id., at pp. 9271, 9272.

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 475

CONSIDERATIONS MILITATING AGAINST LIKELIHOOD OF "WINDS CODE" EXECUTE MESSAGE HAVING BEEN RECEIVED PRIOR TO DECEMBER 7, 1941

1. Examination of Circular 2353 (to which Captain Safford admits the alleged winds execute was responsive) reflects that an execute warning would be added in the middle and at the end of the daily Japanese language short wave news broadcast "in case of emergency (danger of cutting off our diplomatic relations), and *the cutting off of international communications.*" When the execute was heard "all code papers, etc." Were to be destroyed.

A reasonable construction of this circular would indicate that the winds code was an emergency arrangement designed to be employed in the event ordinary commercial means of international communications were no longer available to the Japanese Government. Contemplating that such commercial means conceivably might not be available to her, it would appear natural that Japan should devise a means such as the winds code to direct her diplomatic establishments to destroy their codes and secret papers. Manifestly and quite naturally the winds code should provide for destruction of all code papers inasmuch as the necessity for having any codes whatever of the type outstanding would be precluded by the cutting-off of international communications.

Ordinary commercial means of communications were available to Japan up to the December 7 attack on Pearl Harbor and in fact committee exhibit 1 is replete with instructions to Japanese diplomatic establishments with respect to destruction of codes. [27] Accordingly, it can fairly be concluded that recourse to the emergency system provided by the winds code was not necessitated and in consequence was not resorted to prior to December 7 inasmuch as the contingency contemplating its use (cutting off of international communications) did not materialize prior to the Pearl Harbor attack.

2. It is admitted and of course definitely known that a winds execute message (*Nishi No Kaze Hare* west wind, clear) applying to England was transmitted from Tokyo stations JLG4 and JZJ between 0002 and 0035 GMT, December 8, 1941. [28] Such a message was of course reasonable inasmuch as Japan could very well contemplate that ordinary commercial means of communications would no longer be available after the Pearl Harbor attack.

Inasmuch as a genuine winds execute message applying to England was transmitted after the Pearl Harbor attack, it would appear anomalous that such a message should also have been sent prior to December 7. [29]

3. The investigation conducted in Japan by headquarters of the supreme allied commander reflected that a signal implementing Circulars 2353 and 2354 was probably not transmitted prior to December 8, Tokyo time but was transmitted by radio voice broadcast at some hour after 0230, December 8, Tokyo time. [30] No evidence could be obtained that an implementing signal was transmitted by radio telegraph. Significantly, those who conducted the interrogation

[27] See sections relating to destruction of codes pt. III and IV this report.
[28] See committee exhibit No. 142.
[29] Admiral Noyes suggested that Japan s sending an execute on December 7 was probably occasioned by reason of the fact that some Japanese diplomatic establishment had failed to respond to instructions to destroy their codes which had been dispatched through ordinary channels of communication.
[30] December 7, Washington time.

476 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

in Japan had no knowledge prior to the interrogation that the United States had information that the winds code was used on December 8, Tokyo time. [31]

Mr. Shinroku Tanomogi was head of the overseas department of the Japan Radio Broadcasting Corporation in December 1941, and as such was in charge of programs, including news programs, beamed to foreign countries. Upon interview he stated he had no recollection at all of any "east wind rain" report or any similar phrase being broadcast. Prior to December 8. [32]

4. Inquiry made through the State Department reflects that no winds execute message was intercepted prior to the Pearl Harbor attack by the British, Dutch, or Australians. [33]

5. In his statement submitted for the committee's consideration, Captain Safford definitely states that the alleged implementing winds message was part of a Japanese overseas "news" broadcast from station JAP (Tokyo) on 11980 kilcoycles beginning at 1330 Greenwich civil time on Thursday, December 4, 1941, this time corresponding to 10:30 p. m., Tokyo time, and 8:30 a. m., Washington time, December 4, 1941; that the winds message broadcast was forwarded by teletype from Cheltenham to the Navy Department shortly before 9 a. m. On December 4, 1941. Further, that when he first saw the message it had already been translated by Kramer; that Kramer had underscored all three "code phrases" on the original incoming teletype sheet; and that he had written in pencil or colored crayon the following free translations:

"War with England (including NEI, etc.)
"War with the U. S.
"Peace with Russia."

Kramer has testified that had he seen such a message, as alleged by Safford, he would in no case have interpreted a winds execute to mean war. [34]

In this regard, the Thorpe and Foote messages, which interpreted the winds code as meaning war, were not available to the Navy Department until after the time Safford alleges the winds execute came in and was interpreted by Kramer to mean war. The Thorpe dispatch, while intended for General Miles of the War Department, was sent by Naval Communications and was received at the Navy Department at 1:21 a. m., December 4, l941. [35] It was not decoded until 1:45 a. m., December 5, 1941, the delay being occasioned by the fact that the dispatch was sent "deferred," the lowest priority in handling. [36] The Foote dispatch, it is to be noted, was not received in the State Department until 9:19 a. m., December 4. Consequently, as indicated, no information was available in the Navy Department on the morning of December 4 as alleged by Safford serving as basis for interpreting a winds execute message to mean war. Even conceding the availability of the Thorpe and Foote dispatches, it would scarcely appear likely that the Navy Department would disregard its own translation of the winds code and be guided solely by the dispatches from outside sources.

[31] See committee exhibit No. 142
[32] Id., sec 4B.
[33] Committee exhibit No. 142, secs. 4c, 4d, 4e. See also committee record, p. 11564.
[34] See Navy Court of Inquiry (top secret) record, pp. 968, 969, 975, 987; committee record, 10492.
[35] Committee record, p. 10135.
[36] Id., at pp. 11255,11256.


PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 477

6. The winds execute message Safford alleges he saw on the morning of December 4, bore the "negative form for war with Russia" and mixed up the plain language broadcast with the Morse broadcast. [37] It is thus clear that the alleged winds execute of December 4 was not responsive to the establishing winds code.

Captain Kramer, it should be noted, testified before the joint committee that had the "negative form" been employed with respect to Russia, he would have regarded such fact as nullifying any credence to be placed in a broadcast purporting to be a winds execute message. It would appear agreed that the implementation of an establishing code must conform in meticulous detail to the code as originally established.

7. Referring to Captain Safford's statement, the following matters appear to be subject to serious question:

A. Safford relies on Cincaf 281430 [38] as basis for evaluation of a winds execute message to mean war, pointing out that this dispatch contained the statement "Nishi nishi England *including occupation of Thai or Invasion of Malay and N. E. I.*"

It should be noted, however, that Cincaf 281430 indicates the winds code would be employed "if diplomatic relations are on verge of being severed." In any event the interpretation of Cincaf 281430 as relied upon by Safford while possibly indicating war with England does not by any reasonable construction indicate war with the United States. [38a]

B. Safford's reliance in his statement on Cincaf 281430 as providing basis for evaluating a winds execute as meaning war is in contradiction of his testimony before the Navy Court of Inquiry where reliance was placed on the Thorpe and Foote dispatches. [39]

While denied by Safford, the suggestion was made by counsel before the committee that Safford may have shifted reliance on the Thorpe and Foote dispatches to Cincaf 281430 by reason of the fact that he had learned that both the Thorpe and Foote dispatches were not available to the Navy Department until after the morning of December 4. [40]

C. Safford seeks to bring out that the alleged winds execute was intended for the Japanese London Embassy inasmuch as the latter had destroyed its codes 3 days previously and a winds message was the only way that Tokyo could get news to its London Ambassador secretly. [41]

This statement is not true insofar as it implies that no other means of communication between Tokyo and London was available. By Circular 2409 of November 27, 1941, [42] the Japanese established the "hidden word" code and by Circular 2461 [43] instructed that this code be kept

[37] That is, Circular 2363 with Circular 2354.
[38] Set forth, supra.
[38a] See committee record, p. 9670.
[39] Navy Court of Inquiry (top secret) record, p. 748, see also committee record, p. 9667
[40] Committee record, pp. 9667, 9668.
[41] Id., at p. 9639.
[42] Committee exhibit No. 1, p. 186.
[43] Id., at p. 226.

478 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

until the last moment. This code system of communication was clearly available to the Japanese in communicating with their London Ambassador and was in fact employed on December 7 in Circular 2494. [44] Safford admitted in his testimony before the joint committee the availability in the London Embassy of the hidden word code.

Furthermore, in Circular 2443, dated December 1, [45] to London instructions were issued to discontinue use of the code machine and to dispose of it immediately. Ostensibly other code systems were still available after destruction of the code machine and it is known that coded traffic in the system referred to as PA-K2 passed from the Japanese London Embassy to Tokyo December 6, 1941. [46]

D. By way of lending credence to his assertion that a winds execute was received, Safford has testified that McCollum's dispatch of December 4 (not sent) was predicated on such a winds execute and mentioned the execute in the last portion. [47]

McCollum definitely contradicted this in testifying before the committee, asserting that his dispatch was based on a memorandum he, McCollum, had prepared under, date of December 1 [48] and bore no relationship to a winds execute message; that he neither saw nor received knowledge of a true winds execute prior to December 7. [49]

E. In further substantiation of his allegation that a winds execute was received on the morning of December 4, Safford has referred to the fact that the dispatches from OpNav to our own establishments to destroy their codes was based on a winds execute.

This assertion is diametrically contrary to testimony of Noyes [50] and Kramer [51] who declared that OpNav instructions to our establishments to destroy their codes was based on instructions sent out by the Japanese [52] to their diplomatic establishments to destroy codes, and bore no relationship to a winds execute. The testimony of McCollum and Ingersoll tends to confirm the foregoing.

F. Safford points out that the individual smooth translations of the alleged winds execute for authorized Navy Department officials and the White House were distributed at noon on December 4, 1941, in accordance with standard operating procedure. [53]

Kramer, in testifying before the joint committee, categorically denied that any copies of a winds execute message were prepared for distribution by his section, it

[44] Id., at p. 251
[45] Id., at p. 209.
[46] Committee record, p. 9740.
[47] See pt. IV, this report, for discussion of so-called McCollum dispatch.
[48] Committee exhibit No. 81.
[49] Committee record pp. 9124-9134.
[50] Id., at p. 12623.
[51] Id., at p. 10504.
[52] Committee exhibit No. 1.
[53] Committee record, pp. 9763 et seq.

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 479

being noted that it was the responsibility of Kramer to prepare and distribute the smooth translations. [54]

G. Captain Safford has pointed out that a winds-execute was dispatched in Morse code. Captain Rochefort, who was in charge of the Communications Intelligence Unit at Pearl Harbor in December of l941, testified that all of the broadcast schedules giving the various frequencies furnished by Washington were all voice frequencies; that to him the very setting up of the winds code implied "voice"; that if an execute message were sent in Morse code it would have meant that every Japanese Embassy (and consulate) in every Japanese location throughout the world for whom the message was intended by the Japanese Government would "have had to maintain Morse code operators, people capable of receiving Morse code. I do not think so." [55]

Rochefort further testified that they were monitoring for a winds execute message at Honolulu and continued to do so until after the attack; that four of his best language officers were on a 24-hour watch for an execute; that no winds implementing message was intercepted. [56]

H. Admiral Noyes testified that he would not have regarded the message which Safford alleges was received as an authentic execute message inasmuch as (1) Morse code was allegedly used and in consequence not responsive to Circular 2353; (2) no provision was made in the winds code for a "negative form" with respect to Russia; (3) an execute message would not have been interpreted to mean war; and (4) no reference is made in Circular 2353 to N. E. I., although the alleged execute was responsive to Circular 2353 and Safford indicates reference was made to. N. E. I. [57]

8. Safford, in testifying before the joint committee, placed emphasis on the fact that the winds code provided for destruction of all codes (Circular 2353) and by reason thereof a winds execute message would have more significance than the intercepts contained in committee exhibit 1 which gave instructions with respect to destruction of particular codes. [58]

If a winds execute message was dispatched for the Japanese London Embassy on December 4, as alleged by Safford, it would necessarily

[54] Committee record, p. 10496.
[55] Id., at p. 12548.
[56] Id., at pp. 12532-12534.
[57] Id., at pp. 12614, 12615.
[58] When asked what there was in the winds execute message alleged by him to have been received which indicated *war*, Captain Safford testified: "For one thing there is instruction to destroy all code papers. If that is regarded as synonymous with the outbreak of war, as I have heard testified in this room, that by itself means something more than the wording of these three paragraphs above * * *. Tokyo had sent out instructions to various people telling them to burn their most important codes but to leave two codes open. One was the so-called PA-K2 code and the other was the LA code. Now, with those two exceptions all codes had been burnt, but this said, '*Please destroy all code papers*,' and so forth. In other words, there was no exceptions in this one." Committee record, p. 9778.

In marked contradiction of the foregoing testimony is the explanation of Captain Safford as to the reason for Japan's London Embassy having the PA-K2 code system after the alleged winds execute message was received. He stated: "There were two systems that were exempt from destruction. One was PA-K2, and the other was LA, neither of which were considered by ourselves as secret, and we presumed the Japanese did not consider them secret." Committee record, p. 9741.

It is to be noted, however, that the Honolulu consulate, as well as Tokyo, used the PA-K2 system for some of the most vital messages shortly before December 7 (see committee exhibit No. 2). While this was virtually the only system left after the messages ordering the destruction of various codes, the PA-K2 system was employed for the sending of messages which would probably have tipped off the attack on Pearl Harbor, had it not been for the fact they were not translated until after the attack.  


480 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

mean that *all* codes were to be destroyed by Japan's London Ambassador. It is definitely known, as earlier indicated, that London sent a dispatch to Tokyo in the system known as PA-K2 on December 6, 1941. Such fact would indicate strongly that no winds execute was dispatched on December 4 with consequent destruction of all codes. [59]

9. It appears clear that both the Navy and Army were still looking for a winds execute message after the morning of December 4, based on records of the Federal Communications Commission. [60]

In this connection at 7:50 p. m. on December 5, 1941, the watch officer of FCC phoned Colonel Bratton of the Army with respect to a false winds message received from the FCC Portland monitoring station. The FCC watch officer submitted the following memorandum for his superior with respect to Bratton's remarks:

"Remarks by Col. Bratton:

"Results still negative but am pleased to receive the negative results as it means we have that much more time. The information desired will occur in the middle of a program and possibly will be repeated at frequent intervals. (Asked Col. Bratton if I should communicate the information to Portland concerning the fact that the desired data will be in the middle of a program.) No, I will have a conference with Lt. Col. Dusenberg in the morning and will contact Mr. Sterling in that regard."

The foregoing would indicate that the Army had received no genuine winds execute message by 7:50 p. m., December 5.

The FCC night watch log for December 4, 1941, [61] contains the notation that at 9:32 p. m. "Lt. Brotherhood called to inquire if any other reference to weather was made previously in program intercepted by Portland. Informed him that no other reference was made." There is manifested here an interest by the Navy in the nature of a winds message on the evening of December 4 which is hardly likely if a true execute was received on the morning of December 4.

Further, it would appear logical that had a true winds execute been received on the morning of December 4 the FCC would have been requested to discontinue its monitoring activities. This, however, was not done and the FCC was still monitoring for a winds execute and actually intercepted such an execute (with respect to England) after the Pearl Harbor attack. [62]

10. Collateral considerations tending to minimize likelihood that implementing winds message was dispatched from Tokyo.

A. Referring to the message telephoned by the FCC to Brotherhood at 9:05 p. m. on December 4,63 Safford testified before Admiral Hewitt [64] that this was the "false" message which appeared on this surface to use the "winds" code relating to Russia but which was a genuine weather broadcast. This message, Safford said, Brotherhood telephoned to Admiral Noyes and later *Kramer took one look at it and said it was not what was wanted and threw it into the waste basket*. He testified that this message was received * * * 12 hours or more after what he referred to as the "true winds message."

[59] Committee record, p. 9740.
[60] Committee exhibit No. 142-A.
[61] Id.
[62] See also testimony of Colonel Bratton, committee record, p. 12074.
[63] Committee exhibit No. 142, see. 3.
[64] Hewitt inquiry record, p. 113.

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 481

Query: Why would Kramer be "wanting" a winds execute message 12 hours after Safford alleges Kramer had an execute message and had noted thereon "War with England, War with U. S., peace with Russia"?

B. In testifying before the committee, Justice Roberts stated he had no knowledge of the winds matter and no access to Magic. This would appear to be partially at least in contradiction of Safford's testimony that he last saw the winds execute among material assembled for the Roberts Commission.

Further, Admiral Noyes testified that he was directed to prepare a folder for the Roberts Commission, but it did not include a winds execute message and the folder was in fact supposed to contain no magic nor any reference to it. [65]

C. Safford's detailed recollection of the winds matter, as set forth in his statement, is in sharp conflict with his indefinite and somewhat nebulous memory as reflected by his testimony and the letters directed to Kramer during December 1943, and January 1944.

It should be noted in this connection that Safford testified before Admiral Hart [66] that the winds implementing message came in on the evening of December 3 and Kramer went down to get it. From all of the testimony it appears that Safford's position before the committee was assumed after a process of elimination of possibilities and reconstruction of a situation concerning which he had only a partially independent recollection.

D. Considering the tight reign maintained by the military in Japan and particularly the desire to clothe the movement against Pearl Harbor with utmost secrecy, it would seem highly improbable that the Japanese would tip off her war decision in a news broadcast by advising her London Ambassador of such decision 3 days before Pearl Harbor.

E. If a true winds execute was received and distributed on December 4 it would appear reasonable to assume that some record of the message could be found in the War or Navy Departments. Yet despite repeated searches there is no record whatever in either department of such a message. In this connection Safford has suggested that intercept No. JD-7001, marked "canceled" in the Navy file of intercepts, may have been the missing winds execute. Such a premise, of course, presupposes a deliberate abstraction by someone of an official record from the Navy Department.

In evaluation of Safford's suggestion with respect to No. JD-7001, it should be noted that the file of JD intercepts was maintained by Kramer who has emphatically testified that no winds execute came into his section or was distributed by him. Further, Kramer has pointed out that there are several examples of canceled JD numbers in the file [67] and presented several reasons in testi-

[65] Committee record. P. 12620.
[66] Hart inquiry record, p. 361.
[67] This appears to be borne out by the record. See committee exhibit No. 142, sec. 6.

482 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

fying before the committee why a JD number might be canceled.

Significantly, a check of the Army file of intercepts for the period December 3-5, 1941, reflected that the Navy file contains all intercepts that are in the Army file. [68]

Conceding for purposes of discussion that a winds execute message was received in the form alleged by Safford, it will be noted that such message would not indicate where or when Japan would strike but merely her possible purpose to go to war. Bearing in mind the rather frank admission by Army and Navy officials that they knew war was imminent in the days before December 7, credence could scarcely be placed in the theory that the message was deliberately destroyed when it contained no information that was not admittedly already possessed.

Admiral Ingersoll, for example, testified before the committee that had a true winds execute message been received it would have been regarded as merely confirmatory of the implications contained in Japanese instructions to destroy codes contained in committee exhibit 1, inasmuch as instructions to destroy codes, particularly in the consulates, meant war. The testimony of several other witnesses, including Admiral Noyes and Colonel Bratton, is to the same effect.

11. The testimony of Col. Robert E. Schukraft, assigned to the office of the chief signal officer at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, before the committee on February 19, 1946, is of particular pertinence to the testimony of Captain Kramer, set forth under section 3, supra. Schukraft testified that 2 or 3 days prior to Pearl Harbor Col. Rex Minckler brought to Schukraft's office a piece of yellow teletype paper (the carbon copy) which contained what appeared to be a winds execute message but that the message upon examination was obviously not a true winds execute. Further, Schukraft testified Colonel Minckler had indicated that the Navy had thought the message a true winds execute, Captain Kramer having seen the message and so thinking. He stated that he concluded very positively that the message was not a true execute of the Winds Code. [69]

12. The following officers have stated they have no knowledge of a message in execution of the Winds code prior to December 7, 1941:

Navy

Admiral Harold R. Stark, Chief of Naval Operations. [70]
Admiral Leigh Noyes, Director of Naval Communications. [71]
Admiral T. S. Wilkinson, Director of Naval Intelligence. [72]
Capt. Arthur N. McCollum, in charge, Far Eastern Section of Naval Intelligence. [73]
Admiral Joseph R. Redman, Assistant Director of Naval Communications. [74]

[68] See Army liaison memorandum dated January 26, 1946. Committee record, pp. 8965, 8966.
[69] Committee record pp. 13093-13096.
[70] See Navy Court of Inquiry record, pp. 783 872. Confirmed in testimony before the committee.
[71] Committee record, pp. 12605-12620.
[72] Hewitt inquiry record, pp. 398-401.
[73] Committee record, pp. 9124-9134.
[74] Navy Court of Inquiry record, p. 1103.

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 483

Lt. Comdr. George W. Linn, GY watch officer. [75]
Lt. Comdr. Alfred V. Pering, GY watch officer. [76]
Lt. Comdr. Allan A. Murray, GY watch officer. [77]
Lt. Frederick L. Freeman, assigned to section disseminating to ONI intelligence received from radio intelligence units. [78]
Capt. Redfield Mason, fleet intelligence officer, Asiatic Fleet. [79]
Commander Rudolph J. Fabian, Radio Intelligence Unit at Corregidor. [80]
Capt. Edwin T. Layton, Pacific Fleet intelligence officer. [81]
Capt. Joseph John Rochefort, in charge, Communications Intelligence Unit, Pearl Harbor. [82]

Army  

Gen. George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff. [83]
Maj. Gen. Leonard T. Gerow, Chief of War Plans. [84]
Maj. Gen. Sherman Miles, Chief of G-2. [85]
Col. Rufus W. Bratton, Chief, Far Eastern Section of G-2. [86]
Col. Robert E. Schukraft, Chief, Radio Interception for SIS. [87]
Col. Rex W. Minckler, Chief, SIS. [88]
Brig. Gen. Thomas J; Betts, executive assistant to the Chief of Intelligence Branch MID. [89]
Lt. Col. Frank B. Rowlett, prior to Pearl Harbor attack a civilian technical assistant to the officer of the Cryptoanalytic unit, SIS. [90]
William F. Friedman, a cryptanalyst of War Department. [91]

Over-all observations with respect to Captain Safford's testimony:

13. As previously indicated Captain Safford has rather consistently testified that a true winds execute message was received prior to December 7. However, there are certain discrepancies in his testimony tending to show particularly that his recollection of the incident attending receipt of such an execute has not been definite and has been developed through a process of elimination.

A. The following testimony, in relation to a winds execute, of Captain Safford before Admiral Hewitt reflects rather clearly his indefinite recollection of the winds matter and his efforts to reconstruct a "vague memory": [92]

"Captain SAFFORD. In the fall of l943 it appeared that there was going to be a trial or court martial of Admiral Kimmel. It was hinted in the newspapers and various people in the Navy Department were getting testimony ready for it. I realized I would be one of the important witnesses that, my memory was very vague, and I began looking around to get everything that I could to prepare a written statement which I could follow as testimony. That was the time when I studied the Robert's Report carefully for the first

[75] Hewitt Inquiry record pp. 140-142.
[76] Id., at p. 148.
[77] Id., at pp. 433-441.
[78] Id., at pp. 149, 150.
[79] Id., at pp. 73, 78.
[80] Id., at pp. 73, 78.
[81] Id., at pp. 269-271.
[82] Id., at pp. 46, 48.
[83] See Army Pearl Harbor Board (Top secret) record pp. 35-39. Confirmed in testimony before the committee.
[84] Committee record. p. 4302.
[85] See Clausen investigation record pp. 214, 215. Confirmed In testimony before the committee.
[86] Committee record pp. 12068-12077.
[87] Id., at pp. 13093-13096.
[88] Clausen Investigation record p. 217.
[89] Id., at p. 194.
[90] Id., at pp. 225, 226.
[91] Hewitt Inquiry record pp. 515-520.
[92] Id., at pp. 112, 113.

484 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

time and noted no reference to the winds message or to the message which McCollum had written and which I had seen and I thought had been sent. And then I began talking to everybody who had been around at the time and who I knew had been mixed up in it to see what they could remember to straighten me out on the thing and give me leads to follow down to where I could put my hands on official messages and things so that it would be a matter of fact and not a matter of memory. I also talked the thing over with whatever Army people were still around at the time and had anything in this thing, and bit by bit these facts appeared to come together. The investigation was conducted, if you call it that, for the purpose of preparing myself to take the stand as a witness in a prospective court martial of Admiral Kimmel."

E. The letters directed to Captain Kramer by Safford and incorporated in the committee transcript also indicate an indefinite recollection of events prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. [93]

C. In testifying before Admiral Hart, Safford stated: [94]

"The "Winds Message" was actually broadcast during the evening of December 3, 1941 (Washington time), which was December 4 by Greenwich time and Tokyo time. The combination of frequency, time of day, and radio propagation was such that the "Winds Message" was heard only on the East Coast of the United States, and even then by only one or two of the Navy stations that were listening for it. The other nations and other Navy C. I. Units, not hearing the "Winds Message" themselves and not receiving any word from the Navy Department, naturally presumed that the "Winds Message" had not yet been sent, and that the Japanese Government was still deferring the initiation of hostilities. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the British at Singapore, the Dutch at Java and the Americans at Manila were just as surprised and astonished as the Pacific Fleet and Army posts in Hawaii. It is apparent that the War Department, like the Navy Department failed to send out information that the "Winds Message" had been sent by Tokyo. The "Winds Message" was received in the Navy Department during the evening of December 3, 1941, while Lieutenant (j. g.) Francis M. Brotherhood, U. S. N. R., was on watch. There was some question in Brotherhood's mind as to what this message really meant because it came in a different form from what had been anticipated. Brotherhood called in Lieutenant Commander Kramer who came down that evening and identified that message as the 'Winds Message" we had been looking for."

Yet in his statement and in testifying before the committee Safford has the message coming in on the morning of December 4, 1941, it being brought to him by Lt. A. A. Murray.

D. In testifying before the Navy Court of Inquiry Safford said: [95]

"22. Q. Captain, in a previous answer you stated that the copy of the intercept using the winds code which you saw on the morning of 4 December 1941 indicated a break in diplomatic relations between the United States and Japan and Japan and Great Britain, and war between these nations. Was there anything in the establishment of the code originally which would indicate that a use of that code would indicate war as contrasted with a mere break in diplomatic relations?

"A. The Dutch translation said "war." The Japanese language is very vague and you can put a number of constructions or interpretations or translations on the same message. In very important documents it was customary for the Army and Navy to make independent translations and the differences were sometimes surprising; that  

[93] See testimony of Captains Kramer and Safford before the committee.
[94] Hart inquiry record, p. 361.
[95] Navy Court of Inquiry record, p. 748.


 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 485

is, a difference in degree. The general facts would be alike. However, the people in Communication Intelligence and the people in Signal Intelligence Service and the people in the Far Eastern Section of Naval Intelligence, as well as the Director of Naval Intelligence, considered that meant war and it was a signal of execute for the Japanese war plans.

"23. Q. Captain, I call your attention again to Document 3 in Exhibit 64 which is an English-language translation of the Dutch intercept. Was this your only source of information that the use of this code would indicate "a war decision" which is the wording used by the attach in Batavia?

"A. Mr. Foote's message to the State Department was even more specific. It said, "When crises leading to worst arises following will be broadcast at end of weather reports. 1. *East wind rain* war with United States. 2. *North wind cloudy* war with Russia. 3. *West wind clear*-war with Britain, including an attack on Thailand or Malaya and Dutch East Indies." This was apparently a verbatim quotation from the Dutch translation."

Significantly, in testifying before the committee Safford relies on Cincaf 281430 as the dispatch serving as basis for interpreting a winds execute message to mean war. It has now been conclusively shown that neither the Foote nor Thorpe dispatches were available in the Navy Department at the time Safford alleges an execute was received and interpreted to mean war; i. e. The morning of December 4, 1941. [96]

E. The testimony of Captain Safford taken in its entirety reflects substantial discrepancies as to where the alleged execute message was received. It was only at the time of submitting his statement to the committee that Safford stated definitely the message came in at the Navy's Cheltenham station.

14. Because of substantial discrepancies in testimony given in prior proceedings with respect to the question of whether a winds execute message was received in the War or Navy Department, the inquiry conducted by Admiral Hewitt went fully into the matter, among others, of determining if such a message was intercepted prior to December 7, 1941. Admiral Hewitt found: [97]

"The interception of a "winds" message relating to the United States during the first week of December 1941, would not have conveyed any information of significance which the Chief of Naval Operations and the commander in chief, Pacific Fleet, did not already have.

"No message in the "winds" code relating to the United States was received by any of the watch officers in the Navy Department to whom such a message would have come had it been received in the Navy Department. No such message was intercepted by the radio intelligence units at Pearl Harbor or in the Philippines although intensive efforts were made by those organizations to intercept such a message. The evidence indicates further that no such message was intercepted by the British or the Dutch, despite their efforts to intercept such a message. Neither the Fleet Intelligence Officer of the Asiatic Fleet nor the Fleet Intelligence Officer of the Pacific Fleet nor the Intelligence Officer of the Far Eastern Section of the Office of Naval Intelligence, recalled any such message. The Chief of Naval Operations, the Director of Naval Communications, and the Director of Naval Intelligence recalled no such message. Testimony to the effect that a "winds" code message was received prior to the attack was given by Captain Safford, in charge of Op-20-G, a communications security section at the Navy Department, who stated that such a message was received on December 3rd or 4th, that it related to the United States, and that no copy could be found in the Navy or Army files. In his testimony before Admiral Hart, Captain Safford named, in addition

[96] See in this connection, committee record, pp. 9667, 9668.
[97] For Hewitt Inquiry report, see committee exhibit No. 157.

486 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

to himself, three other officers who, he stated, recalled having seen and read the "winds" message. Each of those officers testified that he had never seen such a message. The only other testimony to the effect that a "winds" message was received was by Captain Kramer, an intelligence officer assigned to Op 2O-G, who said that he recalled that there was a message but that he could not recall whether or not it related to the United States or England or Russia. It may be noted that until he testified in this investigation, Captain Kramer erroneously thought that a "hidden word" message intercepted on the morning of December 7th had been a "winds" message."

CONCLUSION: From consideration of all evidence relating to the winds code, it is concluded that no genuine message, in execution of the code and applying to the United States, was received in the War or Navy Department prior to December 7, 1941. It appears, however, that messages were received which were initially thought possibly to be in execution of the code but were determined not to be execute messages. In view of the preponderate weight of evidence to the contrary, it is believed that Captain Safford is honestly mistaken when he insists that an execute message was received prior to December 7, 1941. Considering the period of time that has elapsed, this mistaken impression is understandable.

Granting for purposes of discussion that a genuine execute message applying to the winds code was intercepted before December 7, it is concluded that such fact would have added nothing to what was already known concerning the critical character of our relations with the Empire of Japan.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack:Report of the J

Postby admin » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:36 am

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 487

Appendix F

GEOGRAPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND NAVY AND ARMY INSTALLATIONS

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 488

[Blank]

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 489

Appendix F

GEOGRAPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND NAVY AND ARMY INSTALLATIONS

GEOGRAPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Territory of Hawaii consists of a chain of eight principal islands. [1] The island of Oahu is to be regarded as of most importance by reason of the excellent enclosed fleet anchorage at Pearl Harbor and the commercial port of Honolulu. Pearl Harbor is located on the southern or lee side of Oahu, in a strategically and commercially important position in the North Pacific Ocean, 3,430 nautical miles southeast of Tokyo, approximately 2,000 nautical miles west to southwest of San Francisco, and 4,767 nautical miles east of Manila. [2]

The islands have a mild subtropical climate with moderate seasonal changes of temperature. They lie in the path of the steady northeasterly trade winds; therefore, the northern portions of Oahu and the immediately adjacent waters are characterized by fresh winds from a northerly direction. The force of the trades is broken by the configuration of the land so that so the south of Oahu the seas are relatively smooth.

Much of the moisture of the trade winds is deposited on the high peaks to the north, forming mist and clouds. Because of this, the visibility to the south of the islands is better than to the north. The northern fringe of the trade belt lies roughly about 300 miles to the north of Oahu, a belt which is characterized by low ceilings, poor visibility, squalls and rain.

The sea area around the Hawaiian Islands was, on December 7, 1941, divided into certain restricted fleet training areas where units and aircraft of the Pacific Fleet might carry out exercises and target practice. Two defensive sea areas were mapped off Pearl Harbor and Kaneohe, these areas having been designated by the President of the United States. Entry of all merchant ships, both United States and foreign, and of all foreign men-of-war was prohibited unless specific permission for such entry had been granted by the Secretary of the Navy. [3]

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor at 7:55 on the morning of December 7, 1941, it was 1:25 in the afternoon of the same day in Washington, D. C., and 3:25 a. m., December 8, in Tokyo. In order to obtain the corresponding time in Washington and Hawaii, it is necessary to subtract 14 hours and 19 1/2 hours, respectively, from Tokyo time. The time of sunrise on the morning of December 7,

[1] They are the islands of: Oahu, Hawaii, Maui, Kahoolawe, Lanai, Molokai, and Kauai, Niihau. See attachment No. 1.
[2] A nautical mile is roughly 1 1/6 land miles. For a table of distances with respect to Pearl Harbor, see committee exhibit No. 6, item 2.
[3] For maps of the Hawaiian Islands and descriptions of the defensive sea areas, see committee exhibit No. 6

490 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

1941, was 6:26 a. m., and morning twilight was at 5:06 a. m., both Hawaiian time. [4]  

NAVY AND ARMY INSTALLATIONS [5]

NAVY

Pearl Harbor was the base of the United States Pacific Fleet at the time Japan struck on December 7, 1941, having been such since May of 1940. The island of Oahu was the headquarters of the Fourteenth Naval District which included the Hawaiian Islands, Midway, Wake, Johnston, Palmyra, and Canton Islands. Except for Pearl Harbor itself, other installations were characterized as "minor" naval installations and were naturally integrated in the over-all defense of the islands, of which Pearl Harbor was the focal point.

On the island of Molokai there was the Homestead Field Naval Air Base, which consisted of a runway, a warming-up platform and supporting installations.

On the island of Maui there was the Puunene Naval Air Base, which consisted of runways, a warming-up platform, and a CAA Territorial landing field. Also on Maui was the Maalaea naval emergency landing field, which consisted of two runways and other supporting installations.  

On the island of Hawaii, the largest island in the Hawaiian chain, was located the naval radio station at Hilo.

On the most important island of the group, Oahu, there was a naval air station at Ewa, which consisted of a mooring mast, a landing mat, and supporting installations.

At the naval air station Kaneohe, on the opposite side of the island, was a landing mat and warming-up platform and supporting installations and also a seaplane base.

At Kahuku Point, up at the north end of the island, there was an emergency landing field.

At Lualualei was located a naval radio station a transmitting station.

At Wahiawa, in the interior, was located a naval radio receiving station.

At Heeia, a naval radio transmitting station was located and at Wailupe a naval radio receiving station.

Referring to Pearl Harbor itself, it is to be noted that the only entrance is from the south by way of a channel which was blasted through the fringing coral reef that had formerly blocked entrance to the harbor. This channel extending to the harbor entrance proper was 375 yards wide and 3,500 yards long with a minimum depth of 45 feet. The entrance proper to Pearl Harbor is between Keahi Point and Holokahiki Point. From here the channel leads to the various lochs and Passages which form the harbor. The major channels or the main channels and water in the vicinity of the major ships' berths had a depth of 40 feet. From the sea buoys to the large dry-dock a portion of the channel had a minimum depth of 45 feet to provide for the entrance and docking of damaged vessels. The entrance to the harbor was closed by two protective nets where the channel through

[4] See committee exhibit No. 6 item 4 for a table showing comparative times and dates for Greenwich, England; Washington D. C.; San Francisco; Hawaii; Tokyo; and Manila on December 6, 7, and 8, 1941.
[5] See committee record pp. 50 et seq.; also committee exhibits Nos. 5 and 6.

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 491

the coral reefs was about 400 yards wide and the depth from 41 to 50 feet. The nets themselves consisted of a combined anti-torpedo net and anti-boat boom to seaward and an inner anti-torpedo net without the boat boom.

The Pearl Harbor fleet base included every type of naval activity. Many of the installations operable at that time were new, having been built subsequent to August 1939. Major installations in operation were, at the Navy Yard, Pearl Harbor: one battleship dock, built in 1928; one battleship dock, under construction; one floating dry-dock, 18,000 tons; one large repair basin, supporting industrial establishments for repairs to anything afloat; one fuel depot with two tank farms above ground; [6] one submarine base with all services for war conditions; one section base, inshore patrol and harbor entrance control post; and, the administrative office of the Fourteenth Naval District which was inside the navy yard.

At the Naval Air Station Ford Island, which is the large island at the center of the harbor there was a large flying field, warming-up platform, sea plane parking areas, and supporting installations.

ARMY

On December 6, 1941, the Hawaiian Department included approximately 43,000 troops under the over-all command of Lt. Gen. Walter C. Short. The principal elements of the department were two Infantry divisions and supporting ground troops composing the beach and land defense forces; the Coast Artillery command, consisting of the seacoast and antiaircraft defense forces; and the Hawaiian Air Force.  

In the Kauai district were located the Third Battalion, Two Hundred Ninety-ninth Infantry (less Companies K and L) and attached troops; Company C, Two Hundred Ninety-ninth Infantry; First Platoon, Signal Company Aircraft Warning; Air Corps detachment.

In the Maui district were the First Battalion, Two Hundred Ninety-ninth Infantry, less Company C and attached troops; Company K, Two Hundred Ninety-ninth Infantry (Molokai); Fourth Platoon Signal Company, Aircraft Warning; Air Corps detachment.

In the Hawaii district were the Second Battalion, Two Hundred Ninety- ninth Infantry and attached troops; camp detachment, Kilauea Military Camp; Fifth Platoon Signal Company, Aircraft Warning; Air Corps detachment.

On the principal island, Oahu, were located:

The Twenty-fourth Infantry Division (less Two Hundred and Ninety-ninth Infantry Regiment); Twenty-fifth Infantry Division; Hawaiian Coast Artillery Command; Hawaiian Air Force; Thirty-fourth Engineers; Eight Hundred and Fourth Engineer Battalion (Aviation); Eleventh Tank Company; Company A, First Separate Chemical Battalion; Hawaiian Pack Train. The Twenty-fourth Infantry Division was responsible for the ground defense of the northern half of Oahu, and the Twenty-fifth Division for that of the southern sector. Most of the components of these divisions were located at Schofield Barracks.

[6] A tank farm is a collection of fuel oil storage tanks.

492 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

The Hawaiian Coast Artillery Command, under Maj. Gen. Henry T. Burgin, consisted of the following harbor defense units:

Fifteenth Coast Artillery Regiment (Harbor Defense).
Sixteenth Coast Artillery Regiment (Harbor Defense).
Forty-first Coast Artillery Regiment (Railway).
Fifty-fifth Coast Artillery Regiment (155 mm., tractor-drawn) and antiaircraft units.
Sixty-fourth Coast Artillery Regiment, semi-mobile.
Ninety-seventh Coast Artillery Regiment, semi-mobile.
Ninety-eighth Coast Artillery Regiment, semi-mobile.
Two Hundred and Fifty-first Coast Artillery Regiment, mobile. Other large-caliber guns available for defense but manned by field artillery were two 240-mm. howitzers and thirty-two 155-mm. howitzers. The seacoast guns were installed principally in permanent fortifications. The fixed antiaircraft guns were emplaced generally to defend the seacoast artillery, and the mobile antiaircraft units were normally stationed at Fort Shafter, Schofield Barracks, and Camp Malakole.

The principal units of Maj. Gen. Frederick L. Martin's Hawaiian Air Force were the Fifth and Eleventh Bombardment Groups, the Fifteenth and Eighteenth Pursuit Groups, the Eighty-sixth Observation Squadron, and the Air Corps services. The Air Force was generally disposed on four fields Hickam, Wheeler, Haleiwa, and Bellows.

For reference purposes in orienting the locations of various Army and Navy installations (as of December 7, 1941), the following illustrations are attached hereto:

1. Map of the Hawaiian Islands showing the disposition of Army forces.

2. Map of the island of Oahu showing Army installations, including airfields.

3. Map of the Hawaiian Islands showing United States naval installations in the Hawaiian area.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack:Report of the J

Postby admin » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:40 am

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 493

THE MINORITY PEARL HARBOR REPORT

We, the undersigned, find it impossible to concur with the findings and conclusions of the Committee's report because they are illogical, and unsupported by the preponderance of the evidence before the Committee. The conclusions of the diplomatic aspects are based upon incomplete evidence.

We, therefore, find it necessary to file a report setting forth the conclusions which we believe are properly sustained by evidence before the committee.

HOMER FERGUSON
OWEN BREWSTER

494 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

CONTENTS OF THE MINORITY PEARL HARBOR REPORT
Page Duty of the committee ............................................. 495
Fundamental questions before the joint committee .................. 496
Difficulties facing the joint committee and incompleteness of the record .......................................................... 497
Form of this report ............................................... 502
Conclusions of fact and responsibility ............................ 503
Conclusions restated with supporting evidence [1] ................. 506
No. 1 (Growing tension with Japan) .............................. 506
No. 2 (Washington's tactics pending Japanese attack) ............ 510
No. 3 (Likelihood of attack by December 1, 1941) ................ 511
No. 4 (Washington's tactics of waiting for the firing of "the first shot' by the Japanese) .............................. 512
No. 5 (Failure to employ Washington organization and facilities to warn Hawaiian commanders) ................................. 513
No. 6 (Intercepted information respecting Japanese war plans) ... 514
No. 7 (Distribution of intercepted information to high authorities in Washington) ............................................ 520
No. 8 (Expectation of a surprise attack by the Japanese on the United States) ........................................... 521
No. 9 (Probability of an attack on Hawaii) ...................... 521
No. 10 (Obligation of Washington authorities to alert outpost commanders for war) ...................................... 524
No. 11 (Responsibility of Washington authorities in view of the decision to await Japanese attack) ....................... 530
No. 12 (Obligation of Washington to send clear instructions to the Hawaiian commanders .................................. 530
No. 13 (Conflicting messages to Hawaiian commanders) ............ 532
No. 14 (Failure of Washington authorities to emphasize probability, of a Pearl Harbor attack) ................... 537
No. 15 (Delays, confusion, and ,negligence of officers in Washington) .............................................. 538
No. 16 (President Roosevelt's failure to enforce cooperation between high military authorities in Washington) ......... 540
No. 17 (Failure of Washington to allocate adequate material to the Hawaiian commanders) ................................. 543
No. 18 (Washington's responsibility for the competence of subordinate officers) .................................... 553
No. 19 (Interdependent responsibilities of Washington and Hawaii) 553
No. 20 (Failure of the President to take instant Executive action on December 6 and 7) .............................. 565
No. 21 (American people not to blame for Pearl Harbor) .......... 570
Conclusion ...................................................... 572
Summary of responsibilities ....................................... 572

[1] Substance of conclusions, paraphrased.

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 495

INVESTIGATION OF THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

THE DUTY OF THE COMMITTEE

The duty of this Committee is fixed by the terms of the joint resolution under which it was created, as expounded by Senator Barkley, author of the resolution, in his address to the Senate on September 6, 1945, explaining the purpose of the resolution.

Section 2 of the joint resolution reads:

"The Committee shall make a full and complete investigation of the facts relating to the events and circumstances leading up to or following the attack made by Japanese armed forces upon Pearl Harbor in the Territory of Hawaii n December 7, 1941, and shall report to the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than January 3, 1946 (later extended to July 16, 1946), the results of its investigation, together with such recommendations as it may seem advisable."

In his address to the Senate on September 6, 1945, Senator Barkley pointed out the need for this investigation by declaring that the reports on Pearl Harbor by the President's Pearl Harbor Commission, the Roberts Commission, the Army Pearl Harbor Board, the Navy Court of Inquiry, and other authorities "are confusing and conflicting, when compared to one another, and to some extent contain contradictions and inconsistencies within themselves." In this connection he referred to the "widespread confusion and suspicion" that prevailed "among the American people and among the Members of Congress."

In all these reports, which had resulted in contradictions, confusion, and inconsistencies, the central issue had been the fixing of responsibility for the catastrophe that befell the American forces at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. This fact Senator Barkley fully recognized in his statement that the first purpose of the investigation is that of "fixing responsibility" for the Pearl Harbor disaster "upon an individual, or a group of individuals, or upon a system under which they operated or cooperated or failed to do either." In fulfillment of this obligation, Senator Barkley said, the investigation

"should be conducted without partisanship or favoritism toward any responsible official, military, naval, or civilian, high or low, living or dead. * * * Congress itself should make its *own thorough, impartial*, and fearless inquiry into the facts and circumstances and conditions prevailing *prior* to and *at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack*, no matter how far back it may be necessary to go in order to appraise the situation which existed prior to and at the time of the attack (Congressional Record, p. 8480, September 6, 1945)."

The Joint Committee, therefore, is charged with the duty of investigating the entire subject de novo. It is and should be free from the findings and conclusions of all previous investigations and in

496 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

quiries except such material as members of this committee in their discretion may see fit to cite or incorporate in their report.

The second purpose of the investigation, Senator Barkley explained, is that of ascertaining whether in view of what happened at Pearl Harbor the findings might be useful to Congress in legislating with regard to military and naval forces and the executive departments having control of them, or which are supposed to work with them.

These views of the obligation of the committee were supported wholeheartedly on the floor of the Senate by Senator Brewster and Senator Ferguson and thereafter the Senate unanimously passed the resolution as so interpreted.

Of necessity, as used in relation to the obligation of this committee, responsibility means responsibility for failure on the part of individual officers or groups of officers or civilian officials to do their full official duty in preparing for and meeting effectively the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941; and the term "duty" means duty according to the Constitution, laws, and established administrative practices under which all such individuals and groups of individuals were bound to operate prior to and on the day of that catastrophe.

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE

Inasmuch as all decisions and activities connected with this occurrence at Pearl Harbor were decisions and activities of executive authorities of the Government of the United States, the issue of responsibility for the degree of success attained by the Japanese attack involves at least one general question and four subsidiary and specific questions:

The general question is: Did all the civil, military, and naval authorities of the United States charged with responsibility for the conduct of diplomatic negotiations with the Japanese Government and for preparedness and defense at Pearl Harbor competently, efficiently, and with proper regard for the trust imposed in them fulfill the duties of their respective offices under the Constitution and laws of the United States?

The subsidiary and specific questions are:

1. Did the high civil, military, and naval authorities in Washington secure in advance of 10 o'clock a. m. (E. S. T.) December 7, 1941, information respecting Japanese designs and intentions sufficient to convince them beyond all reasonable doubt that war with Japan was immediately imminent?

2. If so, did they give to General Walter C. Short and Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, the commanders at Pearl Harbor, clear and definite orders, immediately prior to the Japanese attack, instructing them to be fully alert for defense against such an attack?

3. Was Hawaii adequately equipped for its defense against a Japanese attack in accordance with the known circumstances?

4. Did the commanders at Pearl Harbor take the appropriate measures required by the orders issued to them from Washington, by the duties of their respective offices, and by the information in their possession and the resources at their disposal, to maintain the security of the possessions of the United States as far as that responsibility was invested in them?

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 497

The question of the wisdom of the foreign policy pursued by the Government of the United States is excluded by the terms of the committee's instructions. In any case, to go into this issue would involve the committee in the complexities of history extending back more than 50 years and in matters of opinion which cannot be settled by reference to anything as positive and definite as the Constitution, laws, and established administrative practices of the United States Government. To understand the questions involved, however, an examination of our relations in the Far East, and of the diplomatic negotiations leading up to December 7, 1941, are part and parcel of the explanation of the responsibilities involved in this inquiry.

DIFFICULTIES FACING THE JOINT COMMITTEE AND INCOMPLETENESS OF THE RECORD

When all the testimony, papers, documents, exhibits, and other evidence duly laid before the Committee are reviewed, it becomes apparent that the record is far from complete. The Committee did not have an opportunity to cross-examine any of the high civil executive principals in the Pearl Harbor affair. President Roosevelt and Secretary Knox had died before the Committee was created. Harry Hopkins, who was intimately and officially associated with President Roosevelt, died shortly after the Committee began its work. The health of Secretary of War Stimson and Secretary of State Hull prevented the Committee from getting the full benefit of their knowledge, except for the information they voluntarily furnished.

It is extremely unfortunate that the Roberts Commission Report was so hasty, inconclusive, and incomplete. Some witnesses were examined under oath; others were not. Much testimony was not even recorded. The Commission knew that Japanese messages had been intercepted and were available, prior to the attack, to the high command in Washington. The Commission did not inquire about what information these intercepts contained, who received them, or what was done about them, although the failure of Washington to inform the commanders in Hawaii of this vital intelligence bears directly on the question of whether those commanders performed their full duties. Mr. Justice Roberts testified before this Committee:

"I would not have bothered to read it (the intercepted Japanese traffic) if it had been shown to us (Tr., Vol. 47, p. 8836):"

If it were necessary to do so, detailed examples of the many shortcomings of the Roberts Commission could be set forth. The duty of our Committee to examine the entire subject afresh does not require an extended criticism of the Roberts Report.

It should be noted, however, that Justice Roberts had sufficient legal experience to know the proper method of collecting and preserving evidence which in this case involved the highest interests of the Nation. The facts were then fresh in the minds of key witnesses in Washington. They could not then have been ignorant of their whereabouts at important times or have forgotten the details of events and operations. No files would have been "lost" and no information would have been distorted by the passage of time. The failure to observe these obvious necessities is almost as tragic to the cause of truth as the attack on Pearl Harbor itself was a tragedy for the Nation.

498 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

These difficulties were supplemented by even greater ones stemming from Presidential restraints on the Committee and from the partisan character of the Committee itself.

Even before the Committee commenced its work, it was confronted with an order issued on August 28, 1945, and signed by President Truman, which severely limited the power of the Committee to gain access to the full facts. The order is as follows (Tr., Vol. 1, p. 26):

"AUGUST 28, 1945.  

"Memorandum for The Secretary of State.
The Secretary of War.
The Secretary of the Navy.
The Attorney General.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The Director of the Budget.
The Director of the Office of War Information.

"Appropriate departments of the Government and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are hereby directed to take such steps as are necessary to prevent release to the public, except with the specific approval of the President in each case, of

"Information regarding the past or present status, technique or procedures, degree of success attained, or any specific results of any cryptanalytic unit acting under the authority of the United States Government or any Department thereof.

"HARRY S. TRUMAN.

"Restricted."

It was not until October 23, 1945, that President Truman made the order less stringent by a new order. The modification left much to be desired.

The application of the new order was limited to the State, War, and Navy Departments. It relaxed the secrecy of records only so far as "the Joint Committee" was concerned, while it continued to prevent "individual" members of the Committee from searching records as responsible Members of Congress either alone, in groups, or even when accompanied by Committee counsel. By one way or another, control over papers, records, and other information remained in the hands of the majority party members.  

The President's October order also contained the unfortunate phrase "any information in their possession *material to the investigation*," which provided a cloak for those reluctant to yield information requested by members of the Committee. It was always possible to confront individual members with the view that the papers, data, and information desired was not "material to the investigation." Decisions were made by the majority ruling out evidence as "not material to the investigation" without members of the Committee ever seeing the material about which the decision was made.

No subsequent modifying orders wholly removed these restrictions. In an order of November 7, 1945, President Truman relaxed restraints on executives of the Government in order that they may speak freely to *individual members* of the Committee, but the order closed with the direction: "This does not include any files or written material"

In this fashion every facility and concession afforded to members of the Joint Committee was hedged about with troublesome qualifications and restraints. The relaxation of restraints was often publicized while the continuing qualifications were but little discussed. The effect was to restrict individual members of the Committee in practice while the appearance of their freedom of operations was

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 499  

held out to the public. In justice to Committee counsel and to individual majority members of the Committee, efforts made by them to overcome these restrictions should be recognized. It is a great tribute to their fairness that the Committee did not break up over this issue but continued to work despite the handicaps which were never wholly removed.

The plain fact that an investigation could not be an investigation of committee members remained mere spectators, persuaded some members that restraints on their freedom were not justified. The flimsiness of the argument for restrictions became even more evident when permission to search files and other records was denied by majority vote to individual members *even when accompanied by Committee counsel*. Rightly or wrongly it was inferred from this that there was a deliberate design to block the search for the truth.

Such a view was supported by the knowledge that restrictions on individual members of congressional investigatory bodies were contrary to the best practices in other investigations. Some celebrated instances were recalled. Speaking in the Senate on November 9, 1945, during one of the discussions on Committee powers, the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burton K. Wheeler) observed:

"I concur in what the Senator from Illinois has said with reference to the authorizing of a single member of the committee to hold hearings. I have served on a good many investigations since I have been a Member of the Senate, and some very important ones. I assisted to quite an extent in the Teapot Dome investigation carried on by my colleague, Senator Walsh, of Montana, and likewise I carried on the investigation of the Department of Justice. I was a minority member of the committee.

"In all my experience with any investigating committee, I have never known of any one member of a committee not being permitted to go and look over the files in any department of the Government of the United States. This is the first time I have every known anything of that kind being questioned * * *.

"* * * I call attention to the fact that in the Daugherty investigation I sent for files myself, I asked for files from the Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Daugherty. He refused to give them to me. I have forgotten the ground he stated, but at any rate he refused to give them to me. When he did so, the President of the United States, Mr. Coolidge, called him in and asked for his resignation, and Mr. Daugherty was eliminated from the office of Attorney General. After that time, when the new Attorney General was appointed, every single file I ever asked for, as a minority member of the committee, was furnished to me.

"* * * As I have stated, my colleague, Senator Walsh, of Montana, was a minority member of the committee investigating the Teapot Dome situation. I know of my own personal knowledge that he got from the Department, and from officials in the Department, information which he afterward used, and if he had not been permitted to do that, and if I had not been permitted to do it, I am sure there would have been a complete failure of the investigation of the Department of Justice. (Congressional Record, vol. 91, No. 198, November 9, 1945, p. 10755.)"

Another instance is the more recent one in which President Truman himself is well versed. As Senator, Mr. Truman headed a distinguished committee bearing the popular designation "The Truman Committee" (now the Mead Committee). The cardinal principle of the Truman Committee in the 4 years during which it won the respect and confidence of the American people, rested on the proposition that every individual member of the committee was wholly free to search for any information deemed by him to be relevant wherever and whenever he thought it could be found. Never once did the chairman or the majority of the committee refuse to recognize that right and that responsibility of each individual member.


500 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

Untrammeled freedom of individual committee members in these instances did not produce chaos or disorder as was argued would be the case in the Pearl Harbor inquiry. On the contrary, the procedure and results in each case did honor to the committees concerned and proved salutary for the Nation. Complete concurrence with the most admirable outline of the purposes and scope of the investigation of the events leading up to Pearl Harbor and our entry into the World War as presented to the Senate by the author of the resolution at the time of its introduction and hearty approval of much that has been done by the Committee must not blind us to the extent to which the investigation lived up to its advance billing by its distinguished sponsor.

At the very inception the tested practices in investigations of this character that had demonstrated such extraordinary success in the entire history of the Truman Committee were very definitely rejected and neither of the two members of the Committee who had received rather extended training under the then Senator Truman were allowed to follow the course in the investigation of Pearl Harbor that had repeatedly produced most gratifying results in their earlier experience.

This firm refusal by the Committee majority, consisting of six Democrats as against four Republicans, at the very outset to allow the scope to individual members even with every safeguard proposed against the alleged danger of abuse was both unfortunate and disquieting.

Everything that has since developed must be viewed in the light of this iron curtain that was thus imposed.

Permission was asked to conduct exploration for certain missing records. Vigorous and public denial was made presumably on Executive authority that any records were missing. Subsequently it developed that several records were missing and most inadequate explanations were supplied. How any public interest could possibly have been prejudiced by affording any opportunity to examine the manner of keeping records of this character has never been satisfactorily explained.

These incidents revealed a disquieting determination to keep entire control of the investigation in the hands of the Committee majority who were thus put in the unusual position of arrogating to themselves the capacity to conduct an impartial and adequate investigation of their own administration. The history of human conduct furnishes few precedents to justify such confidence.

Some of the effects of majority decision as well as gaps in the data and testimony due to other causes illustrate the great difficulty surrounding the work of the Committee.

Secretary Stimson declined to appear on the ground that his health did not permit him to undergo the strain. Access to his diary was denied by majority vote.

To accommodate Secretary Stimson because of his illness, Senator Ferguson on March 6, 1946, submitted 176 questions as part of the official record for Secretary Stimson to answer as if propounded in open hearing of the Committee (Tr., Vol. 70, p. 14437 ff.).

Secretary Stimson did not answer any of these questions, and the Committee made no effort to insist upon his answering these questions, which were highly pertinent to the inquiry.

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 501

Later, Senator Ferguson submitted a supplementary list of 61 questions to be answered in the same manner (Tr., Vol. 70, p. 14476).

Secretary Stimson answered these questions in writing, and his answers are part of the record. These answers did not, however, make up for the deficiencies in the failure to answer the earlier list of 176 questions.

Secretary Hull made three appearances, in the course of which he gave his official version of the matters before the Committee and was briefly examined by the counsel, but minority members of the Committee were not permitted to cross-examine him. When his answers to written interrogatories from Committee members proved unresponsive, there was no way to secure further information from him.  

The diary of former Ambassador Joseph C. Grew was likewise denied to the Committee. The assertion of its confidential character was somewhat belied by its submission for examination to certain individuals with a view to its commercial publication.

The denial to the Committee of the Stimson and Grew diaries was particularly obstructive because these principles placed excerpts of the diaries in the record and withheld the rest. This was contrary to the prime rule in American law that if part of a document is put into the record by a witness in his own behalf, the court is entitled to demand the whole of the document. Concerning each of these diaries the Committee, by majority vote, refused to issue subpoenas for their production.

Many messages, probably several hundreds, between Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt received prior to December 7, 1941, were not available to the Committee, although there is good reason to believe that they bore on the gathering crisis. Other messages between Mr. Churchill and the British Embassy and American authorities were made available to the Committee, but our Government replies or action taken were not so available.

The former Prime Minister of Great Britain was in this country not on official business while hearings of this Committee were going on. His intimate knowledge of affairs leading up to Pearl Harbor would have cleared up many gaps in the evidence. By majority vote, a request for the appearance of Mr. Churchill was refused.

President Roosevelt's secretary, Miss Grace Tully, was permitted to determine for herself and the Committee and the country what portions of the official correspondence of the late President had any relevancy to Pearl Harbor. This could hardly be a satisfactory substitute for the responsibility placed upon this Committee.

One of the very important questions concerning the defense of Hawaii dealt with the delays in building airfields and the failure to install radar and other warning devices. Members of the Committee sought to inquire into the performance of one Col. Theodore Wyman, Jr., in this connection, but the Committee decided against it.

The whole question of whether or not it would have been possible to avoid war by proper diplomatic action and thus avert the Pearl Harbor tragedy was left largely unexplored.

We are permitted only occasional glimpses into this realm but these are fascinating.

A modus vivendi was under discussion with Japan in November 1941 to run for 3 months. This had been strongly urged by the War and Navy authorities in order to supply absolutely essential time for

502 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

preparation. Secretary Stimson and Knox went over the terms of this document and advised Secretary Hull that it adequately protected our interest.

Suddenly the modus vivendi was dropped from the agenda and there was substituted the Hull message which was followed shortly after by the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Early on the morning after the delivery of the Hull message Lord Halifax arrived at the State Department. He found Mr. Welles in charge and asked him what has become of the modus vivendi. Mr. Welles replied that it was dropped because of Chinese lack of interest. Lord Halifax intimated a continuing British interest and Mr. Welles significantly replied: "That is not the way London sounded yesterday."

The message from Churchill of the preceding day certainly bears out the Welles' observation. The Committee was told by the State Department that there is no record of any telephone conversations between Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt. This certainly invites inquiry.

The Halifax early morning visit in apparent ignorance of the Churchill message of the day before and of the decision to drop the modus vivendi is not in tune with usual British diplomatic procedure.

Whether or not the Japanese would have accepted the modus vivendi must remain a matter of opinion.

Whether or not it should have been submitted is a matter on which light might well be shed.

Particularly is this the case when we have the testimony of Gen. George C. Marshall that a delay by the Japanese from December 1941 into January 1942 might have resulted in a change of Japanese opinion as to the wisdom of the attack because of the collapse of the German front before Moscow in December 1941.

Whether or not such a development would have been one to be desired must remain for future investigation when more of the diplomatic history of the closing months of 1941 can be more thoroughly explored.

In short the Committee labored under great difficulties and was not in possession of the full historical record pertinent to the ease before it. Nevertheless an investigation was made and an amazing amount of material was developed in the limited time allowed to cover such a vast field. It is the duty of the Committee to render a report, regardless of the inadequacies of evidence, if sufficient facts are at hand to pass on the issues of responsibility for the catastrophe at Pearl Harbor. A careful review of the evidence is convincing enough that these issues can be decided now.

FORM OF THIS REPORT

Accepting the primary obligations of the Committee thus defined and regarding the questions presented above as directly relevant to this inquiry, we have reviewed the testimony, documents, and other materials before the Committee, and we have drawn the following conclusions in respect of responsibility for the catastrophe, which we submit, are fully warranted by the evidence before the Committee. For convenience, we present the conclusions seriatim and then re-

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 503

produce each conclusion separately with comment and citations Of evidence in support of it whenever it is not a mere statement taken from the evidence before the Committee.

These citations, of course, do not exhaust all the evidence which would be adduced to support the respective conclusions. To make them so comprehensive would require the reproduction of hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of testimony and documents. The conclusions stated below resolve all the evidence developed by the Committee. The citations are in each case merely representative and authoritative by way of explanation and clarification of what is confirmed by numerous witnesses and exhibits and stated by men who were in a position to know what was known and done by officials of he United States, civil and military, in relation to Pearl Harbor. In other words, citations of hearsay, controverted evidence, and gossip have been avoided in an effort to keep the conclusions within the bounds of unmistakable fact.

Another point with regard to the conclusions listed should be emphasized: *Collectively, they constitute one statement* in answer to the general question and the four specific questions presented above as necessarily raised by the primary duty of this Committee; and many items of evidence cited in support of one or more conclusions also help sustain other conclusions. Hence in testing the validity of any one among the conclusions, attention must be given to the cross references to other items of evidence which are made in various parts of the text. This unfortunately makes for some unavoidable duplication has been held to a minimum.

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT AND RESPONSIBILITY

1. The course of diplomatic negotiations with Japan during the months preceding December 7, 1941, indicated a growing tension with Japan and after November 26 the immediate imminence of war.

2. By November 7, 1941, President Roosevelt and his Cabinet had reached the unanimous conclusion that war tension had reached such point as to convince them that "the people would back us up in case we struck at Japan down there (in the Far East)." They then took under consideration "what the tactics would be" (Tr., Vol. 70, p. 14415). Unless Japan yielded to diplomatic representations on the part of the United States, there were three choices on tactics before the President and the Cabinet; they could wait until Japan attacked; they could strike without a declaration of war by Congress; or the President could lay the issue of peace or war before Congress (Tr., Vol. 70, p. 14415 ff.).

3. So imminent was war on November 25, that the President in a conference with Secretary Hull, Secretary Knox, Secretary Stimson, General Marshall, and Admiral Stark, "brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps (as soon as) next Monday" (December 1); and the members of the conference discussed the question "How we should maneuver them (the Japanese) into the position firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves" (Tr., Vol. 70, p. 14418).

4. Having considered without agreeing upon the proposition that message on the war situation should be sent to Congress, the President and the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the Secre-

504 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

tary of the Navy, pursued from November 25 to December 7 the tactics of waiting for the firing of "the first shot" by the Japanese.

5. The appropriate high authorities in Washington had the organization for working in such close cooperation during the days immediately prior to the Japanese attack on December 7 that they had every opportunity to make sure that identical and precise instructions warranted by the imminence of war went to the Hawaiian commanders.

6. Through the Army and Navy Intelligence Services extensive information was secured respecting Japanese war plans and designs by intercepted and decoded Japanese secret messages, which indicated the growing danger of war and increasingly after November 26 the imminence of a Japanese attack.

7. Army and Navy information which indicated growing imminence of war was delivered to the highest authorities in charge of national preparedness for meeting an attack, among others, the President, the Secretaries of State, War, and Navy, and the Chief of Staff and the Chief of Naval Operations.

8. Judging by the military and naval history of Japan, high authorities in Washington and the Commanders in Hawaii had good grounds for expecting that in starting war the Japanese Government would make Lt surprise attack on the United States.

9. Neither the diplomatic negotiations nor the intercepts and other information respecting Japanese designs and operations in the hands of the United States authorities warranted those authorities in excluding from defense measures or from orders to the Hawaiian commanders the probability of an attack on Hawaii. On the contrary, there is evidence to the effect that such an attack was, in terms of strategy, necessary from the Japanese point of view and in fact highly probable and that President Roosevelt was taking the probability into account before December 7.

10. The knowledge of Japanese designs and intentions in the hands of the President and the Secretary of State led them to the conclusion at least 10 days before December 7 that an attack by Japan within a few days was so highly probable as to constitute a certainty and, having reached this conclusion, the President, as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, was under obligation to instruct the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy to make sure that the outpost commanders put their armed forces on an all-out alert for war.

11. The decision of the President, in view of the Constitution, to await the Japanese attack rather than ask for a declaration of war by Congress increased the responsibility of high authorities in Washington to use the utmost care in putting the commanders at Pearl Harbor on a full alert for defensive actions before the Japanese attack on December 7, 1941.

12. Inasmuch as the knowledge respecting Japanese designs and operations which was in the possession of high authorities in Washington differed in nature and volume from that in the possession of the Pearl Harbor commanders it was especially incumbent upon the former to formulate instructions to the latter in language not open to misinterpretation as to the obligations imposed on the commanders by the instructions.

13. The messages sent to General Short and Admiral Kimmel by high authorities in Washington during November were couched in such conflicting and imprecise language that they failed to convey to

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 505

the commanders definite information on the state of diplomatic relations with Japan and on Japanese war designs and positive orders respecting the particular actions to be taken orders that were beyond all reasonable doubts as to the need for an all-out alert. In this regard the said high authorities failed to discharge their full duty.

14. High authorities in Washington failed in giving proper weight to the evidence before them respecting Japanese designs and operations which indicated that an attack on Pearl Harbor was highly probable and they failed also to emphasize this probability in messages to the Hawaiian commanders.

15. The failure of Washington authorities to act promptly and consistently in translating intercepts, evaluating information, and sending appropriate instructions to the Hawaiian commanders was in considerable measure due to delays, mismanagement, non-cooperation, unpreparedness, confusion, and negligence on the part of officers in Washington.

16. The President of the United States was responsible for the failure to enforce continuous, efficient, and appropriate cooperation among the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Staff, and the Chief of Naval Operations, in evaluating information and dispatching clear and positive orders to the Hawaiian commanders as events indicated the growing imminence of war; for the Constitution and laws of the United States vested in the President full power, as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, to compel such cooperation and vested this power in him alone with a view to establishing his responsibility to the people of the United States.

17. High authorities in Washington failed to allocate to the Hawaiian commanders the material which the latter often declared to be necessary to defense and often requested, and no requirements of defense or war in the Atlantic did or could excuse these authorities for their failures in this respect.

18. Whatever errors of judgment the commanders at Hawaii committed and whatever mismanagement they displayed in preparing for Japanese attack, attention to chain of responsibility in the civil and military administration requires taking note of the fact that they were designated for their posts by high authorities in Washington all of whom were under obligation to have a care for competence in the selection of subordinates for particular positions of responsibility in the armed forces of the United States.

19. The defense of Hawaii rested upon two sets of interdependent responsibilities: (1) The responsibility in Washington in respect of its ultimate knowledge of diplomatic negotiations, widespread intelligence information, direction of affairs and constitutional duty to plan e defense of the United States; (2) the responsibility cast upon the commanders in the field in charge of a major naval base and the fleet essential to the defense of the territory of the United States to do those things appropriate to the defense of the fleet and outpost. Washington authorities failed in (1); and the commanding officers at Hawaii failed in (2).

20. In the final instance of crucial significance for alerting American outpost commanders, on Saturday night, December 6, and Sunday morning, December 7, the President of the United States failed to take that quick and instant executive action which was required by the occasion and by the responsibility for watchfulness and guardianship  


506 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

rightly associated in law and practice with his high office from the establishment of the Republic to our own times.

21. The contention coming from so high an authority as President Truman on August 3, 1945, that the "country is as much to blame as any individual in this final situation that developed in Pearl Harbor," cannot be sustained because the American people had no intimation whatever of the policies and operations that were being undertaken.

CONCLUSIONS RESTATED WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

1. *The course of diplomatic negotiations with Japan during the months preceding December 7, 1941, indicated a growing tension with Japan and after November 26 the immediate imminence of war*.

The duty of conducting negotiations with foreign governments from March 4, 1933, to December 7, 1941, was vested in President Franklin D. Roosevelt, under the Constitution, laws, and established practice of the United States, and he could delegate to the Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, such correspondence and communications relating thereto as he deemed fitting and proper. In respect of matters assigned to him it was the duty of Secretary Hull to keep the President informed of all transactions that were critical in nature and especially those involving the possible use of the armed forces of the United States.

At least as early as October 8, 1940, President Roosevelt believed that affairs had reached such a state that the United States would become involved in a war with Japan. On that day Admiral Richardson asked the President "if we were going to enter the war." According to the admiral's account the President replied

"that if the Japanese attacked Thailand, or the Kra Peninsula, or the Dutch East Indies we would not enter the war, that if they even attacked the Philippines he doubted whether we would enter the war, but that they (the Japanese) could not always avoid making mistakes and that as the war continued and the area of operations expanded sooner or later they would make a mistake and have would enter the war (Tr., Vol. 4, pp. 683- 4).

In a letter dated January 21, 1941, President Roosevelt informed Ambassador Grew that "our interests are menaced both in Europe and in the Far East. * * * Our strategy of self-defense must be a global strategy * * *" and that "our strategy" must envisage "helping to prevent a closing of channels of communication" between Great Britain and various parts of the world (Grew. Ten Years in Japan, pp. 361-363). Grew's letter dated December 14, 1940, to the President contained this sentence, "* * * the principal point at issue, as I see it, is not whether we call a halt to the Japanese program. But when." (Grew, Ibid., p. 360.) The President replied in a letter: "I find myself in decided agreement with your conclusions."

There is additional evidence for the conclusion that in January 1941 President Roosevelt then became convinced that the war was a global war and that his decisions as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief must thenceforward be made with reference to that conviction. This evidence is as follows: Beginning in January 1941 representatives of the American armed forces and representatives of British and Dutch armed forces on the suggestion of the United States started a series of conversations in respect of cooperation against Japan in the Far East. Out of these and subsequent conversations were developed

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 507

American-British-Dutch war plans for combined operations against Japan if Japanese armed forces started hostile actions against British, Dutch, *or* American possessions in the Far East. President Roosevelt approved these plans, "except officially," as Admiral Stark testified

The President's commitment to Great Britain was foreshadowed by understandings previously reached between American, British, and Dutch military authorities. In a memorandum to the President dated November 27, 1941 (exhibit 17), General Marshall and Admiral Stark stated:

"After consultation with each other United States, British, and Dutch military authorities in the Far East agreed that joint military counteraction against Japan should be undertaken only in case Japan attacks or directly threatens the territory or mandated territory of the United states the British Commonwealth, or the Netherlands East Indies or should the Japanese move forces into Thailand west of 100 East or South of the 10 North, Portuguese Timor, New Caledonia or the Loyalty Islands."

The agreement referred to by Admiral Stark and General Marshall was reached at conferences in Singapore in April 1941 between United States, British, and Dutch military authorities in the Far East. It provided that they would advise their respective Governments to authorize military operations against Japan in the event of any of the following Japanese movements (exhibit 50, par. 26):

"(a) A direct act of war by Japanese armed forces against the territory or mandated Territory of any of the Associated Powers. It is not possible to define accurately what would constitute "a direct act of war." It is possible for a minor incident to occur which although technically an act of war could be resolved by diplomatic action. It is recognized the decision as to whether such an incident is an act of war must lie with the government concerned.

"(b) The movement of the Japanese forces into any part of Thailand to the West of 100 East or to the South or 10 North.

"(c) The movement or a large number of Japanese warships or of a convoy of merchant ships escorted by Japanese warships which from its position and course as clearly directed upon the Philippine Islands. The East coast of the Isthmus of Kra of the East coast of Malaya or had crossed the parallel of 6 North between Malaya and the Philippines, a line from the Gulf of Davao to Waigeo Island or the Equator East of Waigeo.

"(d) The movement of Japanese forces into Portuguese Timor.

"(e) The movement of Japanese forces into New Caledonia or the Loyalty Islands."

The report of the Singapore conversations and the memoranda to the President by Admiral Stark and General Marshall on November 5 and 27, 1941, set forth definite geographic lines, over which a Japanese advance was considered to require armed resistance from the United States, Great Britain, and the Netherlands. One line ran north and south through Thailand. It was parallel to longitude 100 east. A Japanese movement west of it was prohibited. This line protected Burma and the Indian Ocean. Another line ran east and west across the Isthmus of Kra and was parallel with latitude 10 north. A Japanese movement over this line was forbidden. This line in effect protected the Malay Peninsula and Singapore. The Singapore report sets out certain additional lines. One such line was parallel of latitude 6 north and extended between Malaya and the Philippines.

This line protected the Dutch East Indies. They were also protected from Japanese attack, particularly one originating in the

508 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

Palau Islands, by another line extending from the Gulf of Davao in the Philippines to Waigeo Island in the Dutch East Indies. On December 4, 1941, Admiral Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, sent to the British and Dutch Admiralties his recommendation

"that if the Dutch authorities considered a warning should be given Japan it should take the form of a declaration to Japan that in view of the current situation Japanese naval vessels or expeditionary forces crossing the Davao-Waigeo line would be considered hostile and would be attacked (exhibit 79 p. 12)."

While the President did not approve written agreements on these understandings he and the high authorities in Washington acted with the British and Dutch just as if a binding pact had been made. Likewise the Japanese acted upon the same belief that the United States, Britain, and Netherlands East Indies were working together. There is ample evidence in the record to this effect. (Ex. 1, p. 205 Tokyo to Berlin dispatch: Id. P. 227, Washington to Tokyo dispatch.)

Subsequent American diplomatic negotiations with Japan were based upon the principle of cooperation with Great Britain, the Dutch Netherlands, China, and Australia. No separate over-all plan for the simple defense of American possessions against Japan was developed by the armed forces of the United States between January 1941 and December 7, 1941, with a view to safeguarding American interests separately. After the Japanese attack on December 7, American, British, Dutch, and Australian operations in the Pacific theater were conducted on the cooperative principle which had governed the military and naval conversations and planning between January and December 1941.

The danger of war with Japan formed a principal theme of discussion between President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill at the Atlantic Conference in August 1941, and agreements or understandings reached by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill at that Conference were based on a common program for dealing with Japan and close cooperation between the United States and Great Britain in diplomatic, military, and naval affairs in respect of the Far East as well as the Atlantic. Their chief understandings as thus far disclosed by official records were three in number:

(1) Common diplomatic actions warning Japan against taking any further steps in dominating neighboring countries by force or threat of force.

(2) Occupation of the Azores by the armed forces of the United States with protective assistance by British armed forces in guarding against a possible Nazi thrust from the mainland.

(3) Cooperation between the United States and Great Britain in "the policing of the world" during a transition period following the close of the war.

Admiral Stark and General Marshall did not approve these Singapore agreements because they were of a "political nature," beyond their authority to sanction. They recommended, however, that these be taken up by the political departments of the governments involved. Further, under other provisions of the Singapore agreements, Britain entrusted the naval defense of her vital interests in the so-called Malay barrier exclusively to the United States and the Dutch. Only three British vessels were allocated to the defense of this area, and

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 509

these only for escort and patrol. This arrangement was not approved by Stark and Marshall (exhibit 65).

After an understanding was reached at the Atlantic Conference on common diplomatic action against Japan

"the President expressed the belief that by adopting this course any further move of aggression on the part of Japan which might result in war *could be held off for at least thirty days*." [*Italics supplied*.]

The Prime Minister thought that there was a reasonable chance of averting a war in the Pacific (Sumner Welles, Memorandum of Conversation, August 11, 1941; Ex. 22-C, p. 9).

It is scarcely thinkable that in his discussions with Prime Minister Churchill at the Atlantic Conference in August 1941, President Roosevelt would have assumed that the United States was to cooperate with Great Britain in "the policing of the world" for a transition period after the war unless he was then certain that at some stage in the development of the war the United States would become involved in it.

In his statement to the Japanese Ambassador on Sunday, August 17, 1941, immediately following his return from the Atlantic Conference, President Roosevelt warned Japan against further attempts to dominate "neighboring countries," not merely the possessions of the United States, and used diplomatic language which, according to long-established usages, had only one meaning, namely, that such further attempts would result in a conflict with the United States. His statement read:

"* * * this Government (of the United States) now finds it necessary to say the Government of Japan that if the Japanese Government takes *any further steps* in pursuance of a policy or program of military domination by force or threat of force of neighboring countries, the Government of the United States *will be compelled to take immediately any and all steps* which it may deem necessary toward safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the United States and American nationals and toward insuring the safety and security of the United States. [Italics supplied; Foreign Relations of the United States: Japan, vol. II, p. 556-557.]"

In urging upon the State Department, in September 1941, an acceptance of the Japanese proposal for a conference between President Roosevelt and Premier Konoye, the American Ambassador in Tokyo Joseph Grew, declared that, in his opinion, unless a certain amount of confidence be placed by the United States in the professed sincerity of the Premier Konoye and his supporters in making arrangements for he proposed conference:

"the ambassador does not believe that a new orientation can be successfully created in Japan to lead to a general improving of Japanese-American relations and to the hope that ultimate war may be avoided in the Pacific (Grew, Ten Years in Japan, pp. 436-442)."

Accordingly, in rejecting the Japanese proposal for this conferences President Roosevelt and Secretary Hull whatever their reasons and however justifiable these reasons may have been, had before them the deliberate judgment of the American Ambassador in Tokyo that such action would reduce the chances of peace and increase the probability of war. The Konoye Cabinet fell on October 16, 1941, after all Japanese efforts to bring about the conference between President Roosevelt and Premier Konoye had failed.

On November 26, 1941, Secretary Hull, with the approval of President Roosevelt, rejected the Japanese proposal of November 20 for a
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack:Report of the J

Postby admin » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:53 am

Minority Report Cont'd.

510 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

temporary agreement, sometimes called a modus vivendi (below conclusion 19) and presented to Japan his memorandum of that date, the Secretary recognized, and said, that there was then "practically no possibility of an agreement being achieved with Japan." Having reached this conclusion, the Secretary, according to his account of what happened, declared on November 25 and on November 28, at meetings of high officials of this Government, "that the matter of safeguarding our national security was in the hands of the Army and Navy." (Peace and War, 1943, p. 144.) This was presumptively a warning to the War Department and the Navy Department to make ready for war. Accepting it as such the two Departments sent to General Short and Admiral Kimmel messages which, the Departments claimed, ordered the commanders to put into effect a due alert for war a possible Japanese attack (but see conclusion 13).

The President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the Navy were, therefore, certainly bound by the duties of their respective offices to be on the alert day and night after November 26, 1941, for the receipt of any word or message from Japan and for the receipt of any intercepts or other information respecting Japanese designs and intentions that were indicative of a breach of relations and war. They were also bound by their duties to alert and to keep on the alert for sudden attack their immediate subordinates and the outpost commanders having duties in connection with war operations.

2. *By November 7, 1941, President Roosevelt and his Cabinet had reached the unanimous conclusion that war tension had reached such a point as to convince them that "the people would back us up in case we struck at Japan down there (in the Far East)." They then took under consideration "what the tactics would be." (Tr., Vol. 70, p. 14415.) Unless Japan yielded to diplomatic representations on the part of the United States, there were three choices on tactics before the President and the Cabinet: They could wait until Japan attacked; they could strike without a declaration of war by Congress; or the President could lay the issue of peace or war before Congress. (Tr., Vol. 70, p. 14415 ff.*)

The proposal of an appeal to Congress was not new. So high was the war tension in August 1941, that Prime Minister Churchill, recognizing the constitutional inability of President Roosevelt to declare war, proposed that the President seek authority from Congress to act on certain conditions. The Prime Minister's proposal contained in his draft of parallel communications to Japan read:

"If any third power becomes the object of aggression by Japan in consequence of such counter measures or in their support of them the President would have the intention to seek authority from Congress to give aid to such power. (Welles, memorandum of conversation, August 10, 1941.)"

The proposal to incorporate in the American communication to the Japanese Government an announcement of this intention to appeal to Congress was not accepted by President Roosevelt.

Sometime after November 7, 1941, when the President and his Cabinet unanimously agreed that "the country" would back them up in case they struck at Japan in the Far East, high administration authorities discussed the tactics of an appeal by President Roosevelt to Congress in a special message laying before it the serious danger that was

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 511

threatening the United States and its interests in the Far East. The officers of the State Department, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the Navy took part in drafting the proposed message for the resident and their draft when completed was accompanied by a Memorandum for the President," dated November 29, 1941, initialed by Secretary Hull (Ex. 19; 161). In a note sending this draft message to the President, Mr. Hull wrote:

"I think we agree that you will not send message to Congress *until the last stage of our relations, relating to actual hostilities*. [Ex. 19, italics supplied.]"

The decision against laying the issue before Congress left to the administration authorities only the tactics of renewing negotiations with Japan (which as to substantive issues had come to an end on November 26) or the tactics of waiting on Japanese decisions and actions.

Mr. Roosevelt chose to wait until December 7, 1941, rather than place this grave issue before Congress. This seems clear from the testimony as late as the night before the attack as follows:

Commander Schulz said that when he delivered the 13-part message to the President on the night of December 6:

"Mr. Hopkins then expressed a view that since war was undoubtedly going to come at the convenience of the Japanese it was too bad that we could not strike the first blow and prevent any sort of surprise. The President nodded and then said, in effect, "No, we can't do that. We are a democracy and a peaceful people." Then he raised his voice, and this much I remember definitely. He said, "But we have a good record."

"The impression that I got was that we would have to stand on that record, we could not make the first overt move. We would have to wait until it came (Tr., Vol. 63, p. 12442-3)."

3. *So imminent was war on November 25 that the President, in a conference with Secretary Hull, Secretary Know, Secretary Stimson, General Marshall, and Admiral Stark, "brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps (as soon as) next Monday" (December 1); and the members of the conference discussed the question "How we should maneuver them (the Japanese) into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves" (Tr., Vol. 70, p. 14418).

In the diplomatic documents, exhibits, and testimony before the Committee there is a wealth of evidence which underwrites the statement that the tactics of maneuvering the Japanese into "the position of firing the first shot" were followed by high authorities in Washington after November 2S, 1941. Examples of such tactics are afforded by  

(a) Secretary Hull's decision, with the approval of President Roosevelt, to discard the proposal for a temporary agreement with Japan without notifying the Secretary of War or the British and Australian representatives in Washington who had collaborated in working out a draft of a memorandum with a view to reaching such an agreement if possible (conclusion 19).

(b) The substitution for the proposed modus vivendi of the note of November 26 to Japan, which, as Secretary Hull knew and said at the moment, practically put an end to negotiations with Japan and passed over to the Army and Navy the burden of safeguarding the security of the United States.

512 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

Secretary Stimson quoted his diary for November 26 as follows:

"* * * Hull told me over the telephone this morning that he had about made up his mind not to give (make) the proposition that Knox and I passed on the other day to the Japanese but to kick the whole thing over to tell them that he has no other proposition at all. * * * I called Hull up this morning to tell him [of Chiang Kai-shek's objections to the modus vivendi as set forth in a letter to T. V. Soong and shown by him to Mr. Stimson] and ask him what he wanted me to do about it. * * * He replied as I have said above that he had made up his mind to give up the whole thing in respect to a truce and to simply tell the Japanese that he had no further action to propose. * * * (Tr. Vol. 70 p. 14420.)"

(c) The rejection of appeals made to President Roosevelt by General Marshall and Admiral Stark on November 5 and also later on November 97, 1911, for a delay in bringing about a breach with Japan appeals based on their belief that the Army and Navy were not then ready for a war with Japan.

(d) The orders of the Secretary of War to the effect that General Marshall and Admiral Stark should not put into their memorandum appealing for delay, signed November 27, anything that could be "construed as a recommendation to the President that he request Japan to reopen the conversations" (Tr. Vol. 20, p. 3325, and below, especially conclusion 19).

According to Secretary Hull, the tactics of waiting for the Japanese to fire the first shot was, in a measure, forced upon the Administration by the attachment of a large part of the American people to neutrality as expressed in the neutrality legislation of Congress and by their opposition to involvement in war in the Far East as well as elsewhere.

This view Secretary Hull expressed in his statement to the Committee (Tr., Vol. 7, pp. 1096 ff.) and it is set forth more fully by other documents before the Committee, particularly the State Department's publication: *Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy 1931-41*, especially chapter 1.

In this chapter the State Department explains that the President and Secretary Hull were hampered in the pursuit of the foreign policy they had "clearly" decided upon at a date not fixed by the Secretary on account of the opposition by "much of public opinion" in the United States. In this chapter the State Department also explains that

"Our foreign policy during the decade under consideration (1931-41) necessarily had to move within the framework of a gradual evolution of public opinion in the United States away from the idea of isolation expressed in "neutrality" legislation. * * * The pages (in the volume) which follow show the slow march of the United States from an attitude of illusory aloofness toward world-wide forces endangering America to a position in the forefront of the United Nations that are now (l943) making common cause against an attempt at world conquest unparalleled alike in boldness of conception and in brutality of operation."

It is a serious question whether the President and his advisers were justified in making the conclusions that the country would support them for war; and whether actions taken by them upon their own opinion without placing the matter before Congress was in violation of their responsibilities under the Constitution and laws of the land. (See Conclusion 2.)

4. *Having considered, without agreeing upon the proposition,, that a message on the war situation should be sent to Congress, the President        

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 513

and the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the Navy pursued, from November 25 to December 7, the tactics of waiting for the firing of "the first shot" by the Japanese.*

Nothing that indicates any easing of the tension between the United States and Japan appears in the records of the exchanges with the Japanese representatives in Washington between November 27 and December 6, inclusive. On the contrary, relations were rapidly deteriorating (Foreign Relations: 11, pp. 772-784).

It was the general opinion among Washington authorities that the question was no longer "would Japan attack," but "when and where."

On November 28, President Roosevelt said to Secretary Stimson that he could see only three alternatives before him in the situation: "first, to do nothing; second, to make something in the nature of an ultimatum again, stating a point beyond which we would fight; third, to fight at once" (Tr., Vol. 70, p. 14423)

As late as December 2, President Roosevelt seemed to be still considering the subject of a message to Congress. Secretary Stimson recorded on that day: The President "is quite settled, I think, that he will make a message to the Congress and will, perhaps, back that up with a speech to the country" (ibid., p. 14427). On December 2, he was also considering the possibility of a message to the Japanese Emperor (ibid., p. 14427).

With these possibilities of tactics before him, the President fully abandoned the three projects: another ultimatum, fighting at once, sending a message to Congress. He only turned to the fourth possibility sending an appeal to the Japanese Emperor after it was too late; that is, after 9 p. m. on the night of December 6, when the White House had been alerted that the Japanese answer to our note of November 26 was coming in and being decoded and his naval aide was on special duty to receive and deliver it to him. Hence, in such respects, he adhered to his first alternative, that of waiting for Japanese action.

5. *The appropriate high authorities in Washington had the organization for working in such close cooperation during the days immediately prior to the Japanese attack on December 7 that they had every opportunity to make sure that identical and precise instructions warranted by the imminence of war went to the Hawaiian Commanders.*

For the purpose of taking concerted actions in fulfillment of the duties imposed upon them, authorities in Washington formed two groups or organizations with a view to coordinating the operations of the civil and military branches of the executive department. If these groups were so loosely constituted as not to deserve the name of organizations, this was due to a failure on the part of the members to make them effective bodies for the discharge of their coordinating responsibilities.

The first of these two groups consisted of the Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Staff, and the Chief of Naval Operations. Sometimes it was called colloquially the "War Council."

The second group included the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of Navy, usually the Chief of Staff and the Chief of Naval Operations, and occasionally commanding general of Air Force, General Arnold. This group was sometimes colloquially called the "War Cabinet."

514 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

The use of these terms "War Council" and "War Cabinet" while the country was still at peace seems to indicate that high civil and military authorities in Washington were thinking in terms of war and should have been more alert to the probable events of war such as an attack upon our most important outpost and fleet in the Pacific.

Each of these groups or organizations

"was a sort of clearinghouse for information, a gathering place for discussion of policies, so that each of the independent actors in the scene *would know what was going on and would have information to guide him in making his own decisions* that were more or less independent, but at the same time somewhat dependent on the action of other members of the group. (Italics supplied.) (Army Pearl Harbor Board Report, p. 219.)"

If it be argued that these groups were loosely constituted and met irregularly and informally and hence were not organizations in the strict sense of the term [they met once a week at least and had other irregular and additional meetings], it remains a fact that they existed for the purposes described. Furthermore, if, owing to their loose constitution, they did not discharge their duties efficiently, it also remains a fact that the President had the power, and the corresponding duty, to transform either or both of these groups into positive organizations with positive obligations in respect of exchanging information, making decisions, coordinating the civil and military branches of the executive department, and framing orders to outpost commanders. (See Conclusion No. 16.)

At all events, these groups had every opportunity to make sure that identical and precise instructions warranted by the imminence of war went out to the Hawaiian commanders and the President had the power and duty to see that this was done directly or through the agency of these groups, especially the second the "War Cabinet."

6. *Through the Army and Navy intelligence services extensive information was secured respecting Japanese war plans and designs, by intercepted and decoded Japanese secret messages, which indicated the growing danger of war and increasingly after November 26 the imminence of a Japanese attack.*

With extraordinary skill, zeal, and watchfulness the intelligence services of the Army Signal Corps and Navy Office of Naval Communications broke Japanese codes and intercepted messages between the Japanese Government and its spies and agents and ambassadors in all parts of the world and supplied the high authorities in Washington reliable secret information respecting Japanese designs, decisions, and operations at home, in the United States, and in other countries. Although there were delays in the translations of many intercepts, the intelligence services had furnished to those high authorities a large number of Japanese messages which clearly indicated the growing resolve of the Japanese Government on war before December 7, 1941.

Incidentally, it was a matter of great imprudence for the State and War Department to permit so large a number (200) of Japanese consular representatives at so important a naval base as Hawaii. Much of the espionage involved in the intercepts emanated from this consular group m Hawaii.

Four volumes laid before the Committee contain hundreds of these messages including in some cases comment and interpretations:

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 515

(1) *Pearl Harbor: Intercepted Diplomatic messages*. Ex. 1 (253 pp.);

(2) *Japanese Messages Concerning Military Installations, Ship Movements*, etc. (of the United States) (mimeograph, Ex. 2); and

(3) *Army Pearl Harbor Board: Top Secret Testimony, Report, and Official Memoranda* (mimeograph).

(4) *The Navy Court of Inquiry Top Secret Testimony and Report*.

No person has any intellectual or moral right to pass judgment on the question of responsibility for Pearl Harbor who has not read, compared, studied, and interpreted all of these documents.

With regard to the volume, nature, and details of the information respecting Japanese designs and operations supplied by the Army and Navy intelligence services to high authorities in Washington, see below. (Conclusion 20.)

The President and the other officials receiving the intercepted messages in Washington prior to December 7, 1941, considered it likely hat Japan would attack the United States. At a meeting of the President and his so-called War Council on November 25, 1941, according to Mr. Stimson's notes, the President stated: "That we were likely to be attacked perhaps (as soon as) next Monday" (Tr., Vol. 70, p. 14418)."

There was abundant evidence in the intercepted messages that Japan intended to attack the United States. Japan had fixed a dead-line date of November 25 [ex. I, p. 100], extended to November 29 [ex. I, p. 165] for reaching diplomatic agreement with the United States. There were at least six Japanese messages emphasizing this dead line. If the dead-line date passed without agreement, the Japanese Government advised her Ambassadors in Washington: "Things are automatically going to happen." The necessity for agreement by the dead-line date was stressed by Japan in these terms: "The fate of our Empire hangs by the slender thread of a few days"; "We gambled the fate of our land on the throw of this die" (exhibit 1, p. 137, 93). On November 26, 1941, prior to the advanced "dead-line" date, the United States Government delivered to Japan a diplomatic note, which the intercepted messages revealed Japan considered to be a "humiliating proposal," impossible of acceptance (exhibit 1, p. 195). The intercepted diplomatic messages further revealed that Japan expected to "rupture" negotiations with the United States when she replied to the American note of November 26 (exhibit 1, p. 204).

To prevent the United States from becoming unduly suspicious, Japan instructed her envoys in Washington to keep up a pretext of continuing negotiations until this Japanese reply was ready for delivery (exhibit 1, p. 208). A message from the Japanese Government to its Ambassador in Berlin, sent on November 30, was intercepted and translated by the Navy in Washington on December 1 (exhibit 1, p. 204). In this message the Japanese Ambassador was instructed to

"immediately interview Chancellor Hitler and Foreign Minister Ribbentrop and confidentially communicate to them a summary of developments * * *. *Say very secretly to them that there is extreme danger that war may suddenly break out between the Anglo-Saxon nations and Japan through some clash of arms and add the time of the breaking out of this war may come quicker than anyone dreams*. (Italic supplied.)

The President regarded this message as of such interest that he retained a copy of it, contrary to the usual practice in handling the

516 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

intercepted messages (Tr., Vol. 57, p. 10887). On December 2, 1941, elaborate instructions from Japan were intercepted dealing in precise detail with the method of internment of American and British nationals in Asia "on the outbreak of war with England and the United States" (exhibit 1, p. 198).

The probability that the Pacific Fleet would be attacked at Pearl Harbor was clear from the "bomb plot" available in Washington as early as October 9, 1941, and related Japanese messages. It will aid in obtaining a clear understanding of these important messages if the principal intercepted communications are set forth in full. They are:

From: Tokyo (Toyoda)
To: Honolulu
September 24, 1941
#83
Strictly secret.

Henceforth, we would like to have you make reports concerning vessels along the following lines insofar as possible:

1. The waters (of Pearl Harbor) are to be divided roughly into five sub- areas. (We have no objections to your abbreviating as much as you like.)
Area A. Waters between Ford Island and the Arsenal.
Area B. Waters adjacent to the Island south and west of Ford Island. (This area is on the opposite side of the Island from Area A.)
Area C. East Loch.
Area D. Middle Loch.
Area E. West Loch. And the communicating water routes.

2. With regard to warships and aircraft carriers, we would like to have you report on those at anchor, (these are not so important) tied up at wharves, buoys and in the docks. (Designate types and classes briefly. If possible we would like to have you make mention of the fact when there are two or more vessels along side the same wharf.)

ARMY 23260 Trans. 10/9/41 (S)

From: Honolulu (Kita)
To: Washington
September 29, 1941.
Circular #041
Honolulu to Tokyo #178
Re your #083*
(Strictly secret)

The following codes will be used hereafter to designate the location vessels:

1. Repair dock in Navy Yard (The repair basin referred to in my message Washington #48**): KS.

2. Navy Dock in the Navy Yard (The Ten Ten Pier): KT.

3. Moorings in the vicinity of Ford Island: FV.

4. Alongside in Ford Island: FG. (East and west sides will be differentiated by A and B respectively.)

Relayed to Washington, San Francisco.

* Not available
** Available dated 21 August

JD-1 5730 23312 (D) Navy Trans. 10-10-41 (X)

From: Tokyo (Togo)
To: Honolulu (Riyoji)
November 15, 1941.
#111

As relations between Japan and the United States are most critical, make your ships in harbor report irregular, but at a rate of twice a week. Although you already are no doubt aware, please take extra care to maintain secrecy.  

JD 1: 6991 25644 (Y) Navy Trans. 12-3-41 (S)

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 517

From: Tokyo (Togo)
To: Honolulu November 18, 1941
#113

Please report on the following areas as to vessels anchored therein: Area "N", Pearl Harbor, Manila Bay,[a] and the Areas Adjacent thereto. (Make your investigation with great secrecy.)

ARMY 25773 Trans 12.5.41 (S)
[a] Probably means Mamala May.  

From: Tokyo (Togo)
To: Honolulu
November 20, 1941
#111 Strictly secret

Please investigate comprehensively the fleet bases in the neighborhood of the Hawaiian military reservation.

ARMY 25694 JD 7029 Trans. 12-4-41 (S)

From: Tokyo
To: Honolulu
November 29, 1941
#122

We have been receiving reports from you on ship movements, but in future will you also report even where there are no movements.

JD-1: 7086 25823 (Y) Navy Trans. 12-5-41 (2)

From: Honolulu (Kita).
To: Tokyo.
November 18, 1941.
#222.

1. The warship at anchor in the harbor on the 15th were as I told you in my #219 [a] on that day.
Area A [b] A battleship of the Oklahoma class entered and one tanker left port.
Area C [c]-Three warships of the heavy cruiser class were at anchor.

2. On the 17th the Saratoga was not in the harbor. The carrier Enterprise, or some other vessel, was in area C. Two heavy cruisers of the Chicago class, one of the Pensacola class were tied up at docks KS. Four merchant vessels were at anchor in Area D [d].

3. At 10 a. m. on the morning of the 17th, eight destroyers were observed entering the harbor. Their course was as follows: In a single file at a distance of 1,000 meters apart at a speed of 3 knots per hour, they moved into Pearl Harbor. From the entrance of the harbor through area B to the buoys in area C, to which they were moored, they changed course five times, each time roughly 30 degrees. The elapsed time was 1 hour; however; one of these destroyers entered area A after passing the water reservoir on the eastern side.

Relayed to-.  

ARMY 25817 Trans 12-6-41.

In the "bomb plot" message of September 24, 1941, the Japanese Government gave detailed instructions to its consul general in Hawaii as to the character of report it required concerning vessels in Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was to be divided into five subareas. An alphabetical symbol was given each area. The Japanese Government instructed the consul:

"With regard to warships and aircraft carriers, we would like to have you report on those at anchor (these are not so important) tied up at wharves, buoys, and in docks. (Designate type and classes briefly. If possible we would like to have you make mention of the fact when there are two or more vessels alongside the same wharf.)

[a] Available, dated November 14. Code under study.
[b] Waters between Ford Island and the Arsenal.
[c] East Loch.
[d] Middle Loch.  

518 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

This dispatch was decoded and translated in Washington on October 9,1941 (exhibit 2, p. 12)

On September 29, 1941, the Japanese consul in Hawaii replied to his government. He established a system of symbols to be used in designating the location of vessels at key points in Pearl Harbor. This dispatch was decoded and translated in Washington on October 10, 1941.

On November 15, 18, 20, and 29 the Japanese Government urgently called for information about the location of ships in Pearl Harbor (exhibit 2, p. 13-15). On November 15 the Japanese consul in Honolulu was directed to make his "ships in harbor report" irregular but at the rate of twice a week (exhibit 2, p. 13). The reports were to give vessel locations in specific areas of the harbor, using the symbols established in September (exhibit 2, p. 15). The greatest secrecy was enjoined because relations between Japan and the United States were described as "most critical." On November 18 the Japanese consul general reported to Tokyo the locations of the ships in the various subareas of Pearl Harbor, giving minute descriptions of the courses, speed, and distances apart of destroyers entering the harbor (exhibit 2, p. 14). On November 29 reports were requested even though there were no movements of ships. These despatches were intercepted, decoded, and translated in Washington on December 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1941.

The "bomb plot" message, and those messages relating to Pearl Harbor which followed it, meant that the ships of the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor were marked for a Japanese attack. No other American harbor was divided into subareas by Japan. And no other American harbor had such a large share of the fleet to protect.

In no other area did Japan seek information as to whether two or more vessels were alongside the same wharf. Prior to the "bomb plot" message Japanese espionage in Hawaii was directed to ascertain the general whereabouts of the American Fleet, whether at sea or in port. With the "bomb plot" message Japan inaugurated a new policy directed to Pearl Harbor and to no other place, in which information was no longer sought merely as to the general whereabouts of the fleet. But as to the presence of particular ships in particular areas of the harbor. In the period immediately preceding the attack Japan required such reports even when there was no movement of ships in and out of Pearl Harbor. The reports which Japan thus sought and received had a useful purpose only in planning and executing an attack upon the ships in port. These reports were not just the work of enthusiastic local spies gathering meticulous details in an excess of zeal. They were the product of instructions emanating from the Government of Japan in Tokyo. Officers of the high command in Washington have admitted before us that the "bomb plot" message, if correctly evaluated, meant an attack on ships of the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor (Tr., Vol. 18, p. 3026; Vol. 23, p. 4014; Vol. 27, p. 4874; Vol. 12, p. 2100-2102; Vol. 59, p. 11313-11314; Vol. 35, p. 6390, 6394; Vol. 30, p. 5378).

On October 9th, 1941 (ex. 2, p. 12), Lieutenant Commander Kramer of Naval Intelligence in Washington promptly distributed the Pearl Harbor "bomb plot" message to the President, the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Stark, the Director of Naval Communications, the Director of War Plans, and the  

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 519

Director of Naval Intelligence (Tr., Vol. 59 p. 11209). It bore the location "interesting message" on a gist or flag (Tr., Vol. 59, p. 11207). It was accompanied by a summary of its contents as follows:

"Tokyo directs special reports on ships in Pearl Harbor which is divided into five areas for the purpose of showing exact locations (Tr., Vol. 69, p. 11207)."

Military Intelligence through Colonel Bratton delivered the "bomb plot" message to the Secretary of War, the Chief of Staff, and the chief of the War Plans Division (Tr., Vol. 62, p. 12083). The message was discussed several times by Colonel Bratton, Chief of the Far Eastern Section, Military Intelligence Division, War Department General Staff, with his opposite numbers in the Navy Department (Tr., Vol. 62, p. 12105). They discussed possible significance of the message, as implicating a plan for an air attack on ships


520 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

base that Washington authorities were not justified in keeping to themselves or in evaluating it in any manner which would dilute or generalize the significance of the messages in their original form. Washington authorities failed in this, a prime responsibility in their relations with the outpost commanders.

In the days immediately preceding Pearl Harbor, Japan made no effort to conceal the movements or presence of her naval forces in South East Asia (Tr., Vol. 3, p. 453). The movements of her troops in Indo-China at that time were the subject of diplomatic exchanges between the United States and Japan (Foreign Relations of the United States, Japan, 1931-41, vol. II, p. 779). Yet the intercepts showed that some Japanese plan went into effect automatically on November 29, from which Japan hoped to divert American suspicion by a pretext of continued negotiations. The Pearl Harbor "bomb plot" messages gave some hint of what might follow "automatically."

Only the President and his top advisers in Washington had this information. Other messages intercepted later were even more revealing. These were the intercepted Japanese messages distributed in Washington on Saturday afternoon and evening, December 6, and several hours before the blow fell on Sunday morning, December 7. These were:

1. The "Pilot message." This was a message from Japan to her Ambassadors in Washington advising them that the Japanese reply to the American note of November 26 was ready and being sent to them in 14 parts; that it was to be treated with great secrecy pending instructions as to the time of its delivery; and that the time for its delivery was to be fixed in a separate message (Exhibit 1, p. 238).

2. The first 13 parts of the Japanese reply. This included all but the last paragraph of the Japanese note handed to the Secretary of State on December 7 (Exhibit 1, pp. 239-244).

3. The fourteenth and last paragraph of the Japanese reply, and the message to the Japanese Ambassadors which fixed the time for delivery of the Japanese note as 1 p. m Washington time, December 7 (Exhibit 1, p. 248).

Full details of the timing and significance of these messages, how they were handled, and what was done about them is discussed in conclusion 20.  

It is sufficient to say here that prior to December 7, 1941, a great volume of secret information obtained by American and other intelligence services from intercepted Japanese messages was available in Washington with which to gage the designs, intentions, and operations of Japan relative to the United States. This information was distributed to high authorities in Washington and practically none of it was passed on to the commanders in Hawaii although it bore directly on their responsibilities in the defense of their outpost.

7. *Army and Navy information which indicated growing imminence of war was delivered to the highest authorities in charge of national preparedness for meeting an attack, among others, the President, the Secretaries of State, War, and Navy, and the Chief of Staff and the Chief of Naval Operations*.

The "magic" intelligence was regarded as preeminently confidential and the policy with respect to its restricted distribution was dictated by a desire to safeguard the secret that the Japanese diplomatic codes

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 521

were being broken. Delivery of the English texts of the intercepted messages was limited, within the War Department, to the Secretary of War, the Chief of Staff, the Chief of the War Plans Division, and the Chief of the Military Intelligence Division; within the Navy, to the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief of the War Plans Division, and the Director of Naval Intelligence; to the State Department; and to the President's naval aide for transmittal to the President. By agreement between the Army and Navy in Washington, the Army was responsible for distribution of magic within the War Department and to the State Department; the Navy for distribution within the Navy Department and to the White House.

The President requested the original raw messages in English examining them personally and on December 6 had his naval aide on special night duty to receive and deliver them to him.

The dissemination of magic materials did not include the commanders at Hawaii, but on a few occasions material derived therefrom was dispatched by the Navy Department to Admiral Kimmel. The War Department did not send the magic to the field. A large amount of other intelligence obtained from various sources within and without the country was not sent to either of the commanders in Hawaii.

8. *Judging by the military and naval history of Japan, high authorities in Washington and the commanders in Hawaii had good grounds for expecting that in starting war the Japanese Government would make a surprise attack on the United States*.

There is no evidence in the record before the Committee that President Roosevelt, Secretary Hull, Secretary Stimson, and/or Secretary Knox expected at any time prior to December 7 a formal declaration of war on the United States by Japan in case the diplomatic negotiations came to a break. Indeed, all the evidence bearing on expectations in Washington as to Japan's probable methods of making war point to the belief of the Administration that Japan would begin with a surprise attack.

For example, Secretary Hull on November 25 and November 28 at a meeting of "high officials," when he stated that the matter of safeguarding our national security was in the hands of the Army and Navy, "expressed his judgment that any plans for our military defense would include the assumption that the Japanese might make the element of surprise a central point in their strategy, and also might attack at various points simultaneously with a view to demoralizing efforts of defense and of coordination for purposes thereof" (Peace and War, 1943, p. 144).

Speaking to Ambassador Halifax on November 29, Secretary Hull said that it would be a

"serious mistake * * * to make plans of resistance without including the possibility that Japan may move suddenly and with every possible element of surprise * * * that the Japanese recognize that their course of unlimited conquest * * * is a desperate gamble and requires the utmost boldness and risk. (Peace and War, 1943, pp. 144-145)."

Ambassador Grew reported to Hull on November 3

"Japan may resort with dangerous and dramatic suddenness to measures which night make inevitable war with the United States. (Peace and War, p. 775.)"

9. *Neither the diplomatic negotiations nor the intercepts and other information respecting Japanese designs and operations in the hands of

522 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

the United States authorities warranted those authorities in excluding from defense measures or from orders to the Hawaiian commanders the probability of an attack on Hawaii. On the contrary, there is evidence to the effect that such an attack was, in terms of strategy, necessary from the Japanese point of view and in fact highly probable, and that President Roosevelt was taking the probability into account before December 7*.

The fleet was stationed at Pearl Harbor in a large measure, if not entirely, for the purpose of exercising a deterring effect on the aggressive propensities of the Japanese Government during the diplomatic negotiations and of making the Government more likely to yield to the diplomatic representations of the United States in matters of policy. This was done contrary to the advice of the Commander in Chief of the U. S. Fleet, Admiral Richardson (who was removed because of protest on that issue), and with which Admiral William D. Leahy, former Chief of Naval Operations agreed. (Tr. Vol. 6, p. 916). The fleet could produce this effect only as an instrument of war that constituted a potential threat to the Japanese; that is, a powerful instrument which could be used effectively to strike Japanese armed forces if they moved too far southward in the direction of British, Dutch, and/or American possessions in that region.

Having determined to move far southward and having moved far on the way early in December toward that region, the Japanese were warned by every principle of sound naval strategy to destroy, if possible, the American fleet at Hawaii on their left flank.

As Prime Minister Churchill said, in an address to the House of Commons on January 27, 1942, with reference to the Atlantic Conference and British strategic decisions as time went on after that Conference:       

"It must also be remembered that over the whole Pacific scene brooded the great power of the United States Fleet, concentrated at Hawaii. It seemed very unlikely that Japan would attempt the distant invasion of the Malay Peninsula, the assault upon Singapore, and the attack upon the Dutch East Indies, while leaving behind them in their rear this great American Fleet."

President Roosevelt recognized this strategic consideration as shown by his message to Chiang Kai-shek as follows:

"Meanwhile we are exchanging views with the British Government in regard to the entire situation and the tremendous problems which are presented, with a view to effective coordinating of efforts in the most practicable way possible. * * *

"Indirectly influencing that situation: American military and naval defensive forces in the Philippine Islands, which are being steadily increased, and the United States Fleet at Hawaii, lying as they do along the flank of any Japanese military movement into China from Indo-china, are ever present and significant factors in the whole situation, as are the increasing British and Dutch defensive preparations in their territories to the south (Exhibit 16, State Department message, approved by President Roosevelt and transmitted through Ambassador Hu Shih to Chiang Kai-shek)."

High authorities in Washington definitely knew from a message received from Ambassador Winant in London at 10:40 a. m. December 6, 1941 (Washington time) that two large Japanese forces had been seen sailing toward the Kra Peninsula and were distant only fourteen hours in time (Ex. 21). Washington authorities should have known, therefore, that this would bring the strategic principle of what to do

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 523

bout Hawaii into immediate military calculations. They took no steps to alert Hawaii.

The Japanese were fully aware of this strategic principle in December 1941, as their attack on Pearl Harbor demonstrated.

During the weeks preceding December 7, what was the attitude of high authorities in Washington with regard to the probability of Japanese action against Pearl Harbor in accordance with this strategic principle?

Some of those high authorities thought that the Japanese would not take the risk of such an attack. Indeed those authorities were seriously lacking in information respecting the progress and state of Japanese military and naval preparedness and equipment, and they were unaware of the degree to which the Japanese were equipped to attack the American fleet and military installations at Pearl Harbor. The State Department seemed to labor under the impression that the United States could defeat Japan in a few weeks. (See also Secretary Knox Annual Navy Report of June 30, 1941, released December 6, 1911.) Judging by the testimony and documents before the Committee, most of the high authorities in Washington, especially after the Atlantic conference in August 1941, so concentrated their attention on American-British-Australian-Dutch plans for combined actions against the Japanese in southeastern Asia that they failed to give sufficient, if any, careful consideration to the strategic principle which enjoined the Japanese to destroy, if they could, the American fleet at Hawaii on their left flank before advancing too deeply into southeastern waters.

Nevertheless the possibility, indeed the probability, of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had entered into the calculations of high authorities in Washington and the commanders at Pearl Harbor for years, months, and days before December 7, 1941.

The whole raison d' etre of the powerful naval and military installations in Hawaii, as publicly announced, was *defense against a Japanese attack*. (See testimony of Mr. Grew for discussion of this point (Tr. 7 Vol. 9, p. 1586.) Preparations for defense against attack necessarily implied the possibility of an attack.

American war plans and maneuvers in the Hawaiian area for years prior to December 7, 1941, took into full account the probability of a Japanese attack by air. (See Martin-Bellinger report, Ex. 44.)

None of the Army and Navy witnesses before the committee admitted they had neglected the possibility or the probability of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during the period prior to December. On the contrary, they testified that they had consistently reckoned with the possibility, even when they minimized the probability. (Tr., for example, Vol. 12, p. 2111, Vol. 13, pp. 2162, 2167, 2172, 2173, Vol. 14, p. 2341.)

Intercepts of Japanese messages made by the Army and Navy intelligence services showed high authorities in Washington that the Japanese Government had ordered its agents in Hawaii to report on American military and naval installations and ship movements in that region. They also required reports on "lack of movements." For example, September 24, 1941, it ordered an agent to subdivide the waters of Pearl Harbor into five subareas, as well as to report on ship movements there. Prior to and after this date Japanese agents were,

524 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

up to the Japanese attack, reporting on ship movements, installations, and other matters of military and naval significance to the Japanese government. (Japanese messages concerning Military installations, Ship movements, etc., pp. 2-29. See conclusion 6.)

It is true that owing to neglect or delays in Washington some of these messages were not translated prior to December 7, 1941, but enough messages had been translated to provide copious information to high authorities in Washington. Delays in translations were not due to lack of congressional appropriations (General Marshall, Tr., Vol. 19, p. 3149).

Witnesses before the Committee, it may be noted, in extenuation of their lack of emphasis on the probability of an attack on Pearl Harbor, called attention to the fact that Japanese agents were also reporting on the military and naval installations of the United States at Panama, the Philippines, the west coast, and other points. But to men, competent, careful, and watchful, men alert on their all-around and indivisible responsibility, this fact provided no excuse whatever for minimizing the probability of an attack on Pearl Harbor any more than at any other American outpost. Nor does it excuse the failure of Washington authorities to note that far greater detail was being asked for by the Japanese about Hawaii at a time when Japanese movements in the Southeastern Pacific had to contend with the strategic position of Hawaii where the real American striking force, the fleet, rested.

A full review of the testimony and documents before the Committee confirms the conclusion reached by the Army Pearl Harbor Board (p. 107); after its survey of relevant facts: "We must therefore conclude that the responsible authorities, the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Staff in Washington, down to the generals and admirals in Hawaii, *all expected an air attack before Pearl Harbor* (that is December 7, 1941)." As a general statement, when testifying *after* the Pearl Harbor attack, they did not expect it. Apparently the only person who was not surprised was the Secretary of War, Mr. Stimson. Who testified: "Well, I was not surprised!"

10. *The knowledge of Japanese designs and intentions in the hands of the President and the Secretary of State led them to the conclusion at least 10 days before December 7 that an attack by Japan within a few days was so highly probable as to constitute a certainty and, having reached this conclusion, the President, as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, was under obligation to instruct the Secretary of War and Secretary of the Navy to make sure that the outpost commanders put their armed forces on an all-out alert for war*.

Besides the knowledge of Japanese designs and operations which the President and the Secretary of State acquired from their diplomatic negotiations with Japan, they also had the knowledge of Japanese designs and operations made available to them by the Army and Navy intelligence services. This additional knowledge could only serve to fortify the conviction already reached as early as November 25, namely, that a Japanese attack was near at hand or to use President Roosevelt's own words, "we were likely to be attacked perhaps as soon as Monday" (December 1). (See above, conclusion 3.)

The nature of the additional information placed at the disposal of the President and Secretary of State by the Army and Navy Intelligence Service is indicated by the citations of Army and Navy intercepts of Japanese messages. (See conclusion 20.)

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 525

Through intercept of Japanese messages extending over many months prior to December 7, 1941, translated and laid before high authorities in Washington by the Army and Navy Intelligence Services, these Washington authorities learned that Japanese spies and agents, directed by the Japanese Government, were collecting and transmitting to Tokyo an immense amount of exact and detailed information respecting the military and naval installations and the state of preparedness in the Hawaiian Islands, as well as elsewhere, but more detailed in relation to Hawaii than elsewhere. (See conclusion 6.)

As early as September 24, 1941, Washington authorities knew that Japanese agents in Hawaii were instructed to divide the waters of Pearl Harbor into five subareas and later to report to Tokyo regularly on ships in the Harbor, ship movements and also to report even though there were no ship movements. These and other Japanese messages requested information also on military installations, and American preparedness materiel, defensive practices, including air reconnaissance, and other matters of vital importance to Japanese armed forces in case they made an attack on Pearl Harbor. (See conclusion 6.) Owing to inexcusable delays on the part of Army and Navy authorities in Washington in translating the intercepts of Japanese messages, many of the most critical and important messages intercepted on and after November 24, 1941, were unavailable for general distribution among high authorities in Washington before the Japanese blow fell at Pearl Harbor on the morning of December 7.

From a message from Tokyo to Washington, dated and translated on November 28, authorities in Washington learned that the Japanese Government regarded the American note of November 26 as "a humiliating proposal," and that "Japan cannot use it as a basis for negotiations." They further learned from this same Tokyo message that the Japanese answer would be sent to the Japanese ambassadors in Washington in two or three days, "*after which negotiations will be de facto ruptured." [Italics supplied.]

From a message from Tokyo to Berlin, dated November 30 and translated December 1, high authorities in Washington learned that the American note of November 26 was considered by the Japanese Government as "insulting" and that it was impossible for the Japanese Government to find any basis in the American proposal for negotiations, and that, in the Japanese Government's opinion, the United States regarded Japan, along with Germany and Italy as an enemy.

From a message from Tokyo to Berlin, dated November 30 and translated December 1, high authorities in Washington learned that the Japanese Government regarded negotiations with the United States as "ruptured broken," and that the Japanese Government had stated that "the time of the breaking out of this war may come quicker than anyone dreams."

Although the knowledge gained from these and other items of information was sufficient to warn high authorities in Washington that Japan was on the verge of starting hostilities, reference should be made in this connection to the so-called "winds" messages concerning which there had been much dispute and no little mystery. The story, though long, may be abbreviated here.

526 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

Colonel Otis Sadtler testified before the Army Pearl Harbor Board that about November 20, 1941, a Japanese message was intercepted notifying nationals that another message was to come indicating whether war, if launched, would be against the United States, Great Britain, or Russia or any combination of them. The first message stated that the second or "activating" message to come would indicate by reference to the directions of the winds and weather the names of the countries against which war would be started. The Army Pearl Harbor Board also had evidence to the effect that the second or "activating" message from Japan had come and that it meant "War with England, War with America, Peace with Russia." According to the Board's report:

"This original message has now disappeared from the Navy files and cannot be found. It was in existence just after Pearl Harbor and was collected with other messages for submission to the Roberts commission. Copies were in existence in various places but they have all disappeared (Top secret p. 8)."

The evidence before this Committee bearing on the interception of the activating message from Tokyo and on the contention that it indicated hostilities between Japan and the Anglo-American combination covers hundreds of pages. Admittedly the evidence is confusing and conflicting, but after reviewing it; Admiral Royal E. Ingersoll, deputy to Admiral Harold Stark, testified before the Hart Inquiry to questions 68 and 69:

"68. Q. During November or December '41 were you cognizant of a special code which the Japanese had arranged under which they were to inform their nationals concerning against what nations they would make aggressive movements by means of a partial weather report?

"A. Yes; I do recall such messages.

"69. Q. Do you recall having seen on or about 4 December the broadcast directive thus given indicating that the Japanese were about to attack both Britain and the United States?

"A. Yes."  

Admiral Ingersoll, Deputy to Admiral Harold Stark at Washington, and Admiral Turner, Navy operations officer at Washington, both stated they did not know until 1945 about the allegation that there had been no wind execute message. Even if the wind execute message they saw was a false one they believed it true at the time and should have acted accordingly.

If, however, the receipt of the activating "winds" message be wholly discounted, such discounting in no way affects the other items of unmistakable evidence which demonstrates that high authorities in Washington had sufficient knowledge of Japanese designs to convince them before the attack that war with Japan was an imminent certainty.

From a message from Tokyo to Washington, dated December 2 and translated December 3, high authorities in Washington learned that the Japanese Government had ordered its Washington Embassy to destroy all codes except one and all secret documents. (One code machine was to be kept for use in the final negotiations which ended in the rupture of relations on December 7.)

From a message dated December 6 and translated on December 6, sometime in the afternoon, Washington authorities learned that the Japanese Government had notified the Japanese Embassy in Washington that a memorandum for the United States would be sent in 14 parts and to be prepared to present it the memorandum that would make a rupture in relations with the United States.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack:Report of the J

Postby admin » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:59 am

Minority Report Cont'd.

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 527

Messages serving as guides to procedure in the matter of this 14-part message follow:

(Secret)

From: Tokyo
To: Washington
December 7, 1941
(Urgent Very Important)
#907 To be handled in Government Code
Re my #902. [a]

Will the Ambassador please submit to the United States Government (if possible to the Secretary of State) our reply to the United States at 1:00 p. m., on the 7th, your time.

Trans. 12/7/41 (S)
Army 25850
[a] S.I.S. #25843 text of Japanese reply.

(Secret)

From: Tokyo
To: Washington
December 6, 1941
#904
Re my #902

There is really no need to tell you this, but in the preparation of the aide memoire be absolutely sure not to use a typist or any other person. Be most extremely cautious in preserving secrecy.  

Trans. 12-6-41 (S)
Army 25844
JD: 7144

(Secret)

From: Tokyo
To: Washington
December 7, 1941
(Extremely Urgent)
#910

After deciphering part 14 of my #902 a and also #907 b, #908 c and 909 d, please destroy at once the remaining cipher machine and all machine codes. Dispose in like manner also secret documents.

Trans. 12/7/41 (S)

The "pilot message" was filed in Tokyo at 6:56 *a. m*. Washington time December 6; it was intercepted by the Navy by 7:20 a. m. Washington time December 6, and forwarded to the Navy Department. It was sent by the Navy to the Army for decryption and translation about noon, Washington time, on December 6 (exhibit 41). It was decrypted, translated, and distributed about 3 p. m., Washington time, by the Army, to Mr. Hull, Mr. Stimson, General Marshall, the Chief of the Far Plans Division, General Gerow, and the Chief of Military Intelligence, General Miles (Tr., Vol. 62, p. 12050). In the Navy Department the Director of Naval Intelligence Admiral Wilkinson received the so-called "pilot message" prior to 6 p. m., Washington time, on December 6 (Tr., Vol. 26, p. 4658). He had previously told his subordinates to be on the lookout for the Japanese reply and felt sure that he gave instructions that the "pilot message" was to be delivered to Admiral Stark (Tr., Vol. 26, p. 4662). Admiral Turner, Chief of the War Plans Division in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, received the "pilot message" in the evening of December 6 (Tr., Vol.

528 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

30, pp. 5440-5442). Admiral Stark and General Marshall each denies that on December 6 he had knowledge of the "pilot message" (Tr., Vol. 21, p. 3473, and Vol. 32, p. 5813). We find on the testimony of General Miles and Colonel Bratton that the "pilot message" was delivered to General Marshall during the afternoon of December 6, 1941 (Tr., Vol. 21, pp. 3589-3590, and Vol. 62, pp. 12019-12050).

In late afternoon or early evening of December 6, American Naval Communications intercepted, decoded, and translated the first 13 parts of this memorandum from the Japanese Government to the State Department the answer to the United States note to Japan on November 26. The translation of these 13 parts was presented to President Roosevelt between 9 and 10 o'clock that evening. After he had read the 13 parts, the President said in substance, "This means war."

The evidence indicated that the first 13 parts were read on the evening of December 6 by, particularly, the President, Mr. Harry Hopkins, Secretary Knox, Admiral Ingersoll, Admiral Turner, Admiral Wilkinson, Admiral Beardall, General Miles, Captain Kramer, and Colonel Bratton.

Owing to the practice of making decisions by war cabinets, councils, joint committees, and individuals, official responsibility of each man was so blurred that each man became indifferent to his own individual responsibility. A good example of this is Admiral Turner's assumption that so long as Admiral Wilkinson, Admiral Ingersoll, and Secretary Knox had seen the 13-part message, "I did not believe it was my function to take any action." No one took action that night; all waited for the next day. [1]

When Mr. Knox received the message he called Mr. Stimson and Mr. Hull and arranged a conference with them for Sunday morning at 10 a. m. (Tr., Vol. 56, pp. 10675-10681). Mr. Stimson asked the Navy Department on Saturday evening to furnish him by 9 a. m. Sunday morning the following information:

"Compilation of men-of-war in Far East: British, American, Japanese, Dutch, Russian; *also compilation of American men-of-war in Pacific Fleet*, with locations, with a *list* of American men-of-war in the Atlantic without locations (Tr., Vol. 69, p. 13,988; italics inserted)."

Admirals Stark, Ingersoll, and the Secretary of the Navy were consulted about this request. The Secretary of the Navy directed that

[1] On many occasions the obligation of an officer was weakened by intermeddling of superiors. President Roosevelt, himself, often directed detailed operations for which field commanders were responsible. An example of this occurred in connection with an order on December 2, 1941, which the Chief of Naval Operations sent to the Commander in Chief of the Asiatic Fleet, commencing as follows:

"President directs that the following be done as soon as possible and within 2 days if possible after receipt this despatch" (exhibit 37, p. 39).

The President's directions were that the Commander in Chief of the Asiatic Fleet was to charter three small vessels to form a "defensive information patrol." The minimum requirements to establish these ships as United States men of war would suffice in manning them. These requirements were command by a naval officer and the mounting of a small gun and one machine gun. The employment of Filipino crews with the minimum number naval ratings was authorized. The ships were to observe and report by radio Japanese movements to the West China Sea and Gulf of Siam. The President prescribed the point at which each vessel was to be stationed. One vessel was to be stationed between Hainan and Hue, one between Camranh Bay and Cape St. Jaques, one off Pointe De Camau (exhibit 37, p. 39). All these points were clearly in the path of the Japanese advance down the coast of Indochina, and toward the Gulf of Siam. The Navy Department did not originate this plan (Tr., Vol. 60, p. 11351) The Navy Department would not have directed it to be done unless the President had specifically ordered it (Tr., Vol. 60, p. 11351) Admiral Hart was already conducting reconnaissance off that coast by planes from Manila (Tr., Vol. 60 p. 11350). So far as the Navy Department was concerned, sufficient information was being received from this air reconnaissance (Tr., Vol. 60 p. 11351). Had the Japanese fired upon any one of these three small vessels, it would have constituted an overt act on the part of Japan (Tr., Vol. 60, p. 11352). Interferences such as these by superior officers, however, permitted by the line of authority, breed indifference to responsibility on the part of the officer who is superseded.

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 529

the information be compiled and delivered prior to 10 o'clock Sunday, December 7, (Tr., Vol. 69, p. 13989). This was done. The compilation showed that practically all the ships of the Pacific Fleet were in Pearl Harbor (Exhibit 176, p. 2).

In the early morning of December 7, 1941, about 5 a. m. Washington time, the message fixing the hour for delivery of the Japanese note as 1 p. m., Washington time, was available in the Navy Department in Washington (Tr., Vol. 56, pp. 10694-10701). This was 8 1/2 hours before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Admiral Stark and his principal subordinates have testified before us that they had knowledge of this message about 10:30 a. m. (Tr., Vol. 26, p. 4675; Vol. 49, pp. 9146-9148; Vol. 55, p. 10469). This was 5 1/2 hours after it had been received in the Navy Department. It was about 3 hours before the attack.

The relation of 1 p. m. Washington time to early morning in Hawaii was pointed out to Admiral Stark (Tr., Vol. 49, pp. 9146-9148, 9154-9156, 9236-9254; Vol. 26, pp. 4679, 4685). It meant dawn in Hawaii the strategic time at which to launch an attack. Admiral Stark was urged by the Director of Naval Intelligence to send a warning to the fleet (Tr., Vol. 26, p. 4673). The chief intelligence officers of the Army had the "1 p. m. message" by 9 a. m. Washington time, immediately appreciated its significance, but did not succeed in bringing to General Marshall's attention until nearly several hours later (Tr., Vol. 62, pp. 12077- 12078, 12079-12081). Marshall was horseback riding in Virginia. No action was taken by the Army until he saw and read the 1 p. m. message and related intercepts, at which time he sent a message to General Short which went over commercial facilities and was received after the Pearl Harbor attack (Tr., Vol. 18, pp. 2935-2939, Vol. 45, p. 8396). Admiral Stark took no action on this information except to agree to the inclusion in the belated Army message of instructions to General Short to advise Admiral Kimmel of its contents (Tr., Vol. 32, pp. 5814-5816).

Mr. Hull, Mr. Stimson, and Mr. Knox had the 1 p. m. message at their conference about 10:30 a. M. Washington time, December 7 (Tr., Vol. 55, p. 10473). The relation of Washington time to time in Hawaii and the Philippines was brought to their attention (Tr., Vol. 5, pp. 10473- 10475). Mr. Stimson's notes describing the Sunday morning conference state:

"Today is the day that the Japanese are going to bring their answer to Hull and everything in MAGIC indicated they had been keeping the time back until now in order to accomplish something hanging in the air. Knox and I arranged conference with Hull at 10:30 and we talked the whole matter over. Hull very certain that the Japs are planning some deviltry and we are all wondering where the blow will strike (Tr., Vol. 70, p. 14428)."

The 1 p. m. message was delivered to the White House about 10:30 m. Sunday, December 7, 1941 (Tr., Vol. 55, p. 10476).

On the morning of December 7, before 8 o'clock, Navy Intelligence had ready for high authorities of the United States Government a translation of its intercept of the fourteenth and final part of the Japanese memorandum.

The fact that General Marshall decided on the basis of the intercepts of Japanese messages made available on or before 11:25 o'clock on the morning of December 7, to send an urgent war warning to the outpost commanders is itself evidence that, despite previous messages to outpost commanders, Washington authorities recognized that their


530 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

knowledge of these intercepts and their minute direction of affairs placed an obligation on them to convey precise information to outpost commanders and to make sure that they were on an all-out alert for war. Owing to inexcusable delays in Washington this final warning to General Short did not reach him until after the Japanese attack.

General Marshall failed to use the scrambler telephone on his desk to call General Short in Hawaii on Sunday morning, December 7, nearly 2 hours before the attack, and give him the same information which he sent in the delayed telegram which reached General Short after the attack. General Marshall testified that among the possible factors which may have influenced him against using the scrambler telephone was the possibility that the Japanese could construe the fact that the Army was alerting its garrisons in Hawaii as a hostile act (Tr., Vol. 20, pp. 3389-3390).

"The Japanese would have grasped at most any straw to bring to such portions of our public that doubted our integrity of action that we were committing an act that forced action on their part (Tr., Vol. 19, p. 3193)."

This explanation is no excuse for the failure to put the Hawaiian commanders on the full alert for defense. Such an alert could not be considered a hostile or aggressive act on the part of the United States.

11. *The decision of the President, in view of the Constitution, to await the Japanese attack rather than ask for a declaration of war by Congress increased the responsibility of high authorities in Washington to use the utmost care in putting the commanders at Pearl Harbor on a full alert for defensive actions before the Japanese attack on December 7, 1941*.

The difficulty of coping effectively with the menace of Japanese hostilities by the method of maneuvering and waiting for an attack or attacks (conclusions 2, 3, and 4) was recognized by the President and his immediate subordinates. They knew that the power to declare war was vested in Congress alone by the Constitution. Prime Minister Churchill, who had referred to this matter at the Atlantic Conference (conclusion 1) again suggested to President Roosevelt, on November 30, 1941, that the President inform the Japanese that further aggression on their part would compel him "to place the gravest issues before Congress" (Tr., Vol. 8, p. 1253). President Roosevelt must have given serious thought to the constitutional difficulty during the several days prior to December 7, while he was considering plans for a special message to Congress (conclusions 3 and 4).

After it was decided, therefore, that no message be sent to Congress it then became all the more incumbent upon the President and the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Staff, and the Chief of Naval Operations to make doubly certain that war warning messages to General Short and Admiral Kimmel be so clearly formulated as to mean to them an all-out alert of the forces under their command.

12. *Inasmuch as the knowledge respecting Japanese designs and, operations which was in the possession of high authorities in Washington differed in nature and volume from that in the possession of the Pearl Harbor commanders it was especially incumbent upon the former to formulate instructions to the latter in language not open

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 531

to misinterpretations as to the obligations imposed on the commanders by the instructions*.

Since Washington authorities knew that vital information in their possession diplomatic, military, and naval was not being sent to General Short and Admiral Kimmel, and that this was because of Washington's own decision, it was obligatory for them to give particular care to the formulation of messages to the commanders which revealed the growing war tension, the menacing imminence of the breach in American-Japanese relations, and the resolve of those high authorities to wait for an attack, while still carrying on maneuvering (conclusions 1-5 and below, conclusion 20).

The increasing assumption of the detailed direction of affairs by high authorities in Washington added to the obligation of those high authorities to give precise instructions to the outpost commanders.

For information in possession of Washington authorities not sent to General Short and Admiral Kimmel, see Army Pearl Harbor Board and Navy Pearl Harbor Court of Inquiry reports, top secret reports, and top secret memoranda. It is true that General Short and Admiral Kimmel had a great deal of information as to Japanese designs and operations which was not in the messages sent to them by the War Department and the Navy Department. It is also true that there were differences of opinion among high authorities in Washington over the nature of the information conveyed by certain intercepts; for example, the so-called "winds message" and the activating "winds message." But it is beyond all question that Washington authorities had a large volume of information, particularly as to vital diplomatic decisions and Japanese intentions which was not transmitted to the Hawaiian commanders. This withholding of information from General Short and Admiral Kimmel was in part due to general policy adopted in Washington.

General Sherman Miles, at the hearing of November 30, testified at neither the intercepted messages nor essential information derived from them had been sent to Hawaii, although in exceptional cases the substance of some messages had been transmitted in naval code. The exceptional practice of sending the substance in some messages was stopped in July 1941 and General Miles testified that, so far as he knew, General Short and Admiral Kimmel were not notified of this change this discontinuance of sending even the substance of some intercepts. (Tr., Vol. 13, pp. 2140-2142.)

Admiral Kimmel had requested all information and was assured by Admiral Stark he would get it. A few messages were sent up until December 7, but he had no notice that he was not getting all the information available.

From among the numerous items of crucial information in possession of Navy Intelligence and Washington authorities and *not* transmitted to General Short one may be selected as particularly pertinent to Pearl Harbor. Through its intelligence sources in the Fourteenth Naval District at Pearl Harbor and in Washington, the Navy discovered the presence at Jaluit, in the Marshall Islands, of a Japanese fleet composed of aircraft carriers and other vessels, but lost track of it about December 1. Jaluit is 1,500 miles nearer to Pearl Harbor than is the mainland of Japan. The Japanese fleet there was a strong force capable of attacking Hawaii. Information about this

532 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

Japanese fleet was delivered to the War Department, but it was not transmitted to General Short. General Short testified during the Army board hearings on Pearl Harbor that knowledge of the Japanese fleet at Jaluit would have materially modified his point of view and actions (Army Pearl Harbor Report, pp. 146-147).

Japan had fixed a dead-line date of November 25 (Exhibit 1, p. 100), extended to November 29 (Exhibit 1, p. 165) (see Japanese messages), for reaching a diplomatic agreement with the United States. There were at least six messages. If the dead-line date passed without agreement, the Japanese Government advised her Ambassadors in Washington: "Things are automatically going to happen." The necessity for agreement by the dead- line date was stressed by Japan in these terms:

"The fate of our Empire hangs by the slender thread of a few days; (and also) we gambled the fate of our land on the throw of this die (Exhibit 1, p. 137, 93)."

On November 26, 1941, prior to the advanced "dead line" date, the United States Government delivered to Japan a diplomatic note which the intercepted messages revealed Japan considered to be a "humiliating proposal," impossible of acceptance (Exhibit 1, p. 195). The intercepted diplomatic messages further revealed that Japan expected to "rupture" negotiations with the United States when she replied to the American note of November 26 (Exhibit 1, p. 195). To prevent the United States from becoming unduly suspicious Japan instructed her envoys in Washington to keep up a pretext of continuing negotiations until this Japanese reply was ready for delivery (Exhibit 1, p.208).

A message from the Japanese Government to its Ambassador in Berlin, sent on November 30, was intercepted and translated to the Navy in Washington on December 1 (Exhibit 1, p. 204). In this message the Japanese Ambassador was instructed to

"immediately interview Chancellor Hitler and Foreign Minister Ribbentrop and confidentially communicate to them a summary of development. * * * Say very secretly to them that there is extreme danger that war may suddenly break out between the Anglo-Saxon nations and Japan through some clash of arms and add the time of the breaking out of this war may come quicker than anyone dreams."

The President regarded this message as of such interest that he retained a copy of it, contrary to the usual practice in handling the intercepted messages (Vol. 57, pp. 10887-10888).

On December 2, 1941, elaborate instructions from Japan were intercepted dealing in precise detail with the method of interment of American and British nationals in Asia "on the outbreak of war with England and the United States" (Exhibit 1, p. 198).

None of these messages showing the imminence of war was sent to Admiral Kimmel or General Short.

13. *The messages sent to General Short and Admiral Kimmel by high authorities in Washington during November were couched in such conflicting and imprecise language that they failed to convey to the commanders definite information on the state of diplomatic relations with Japan and on Japanese war designs and positive orders respecting the particular actions to be taken orders that were beyond all reasonable doubts as to the need for an all-out alert. In this regard the said high authorities failed to discharge their full duty.

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 533

On this subject the Committee has before it hundreds of pages of testimony, exhibits, and documents in which conflicting views are expressed by men presumably of competence and understanding as to he sufficiency or insufficiency of the war warnings to General Short and Admiral Kimmel. According to the obligations conferred upon the Committee by the joint resolution creating it, as explained by Senator Barkley in his address to the Senate on September 6, 1945, the Committee is bound to weigh all messages and information available to General Short and Admiral Kimmel.

A full review of all the testimony, exhibits, and papers relative to the so-called war-warning messages sent to General Short and Admiral Kimmel would fill a volume of at least 500 pages, so we content ourselves with presenting the following facts in respect to the conflicting, imprecise, and insufficient character of these messages.

It should be here observed that Washington had taken unto itself such a minute direction of affairs as regards outposts that the usual discretion of outpost commanders was narrowly limited.

First of all, it is to be noted that the four reports by the Army and Navy boards created to investigate Pearl Harbor found the warning messages insufficient to put the Hawaiian commanders on a full war alert; and the President's Commission on Pearl Harbor, while finding the commanders guilty of dereliction of duty, itself places neglect on the part of the War Department, in respect to such orders, as among the contributory causes of the catastrophe at Pearl Harbor; thus qualifying its own conclusions.

The President's Commission, though limited by his instructions to a search for derelictions of duty and errors of judgment on the part of the Army and Navy personnel, made a point of declaring that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the Navy had fulfilled their obligations with regard to matters bearing in the situation at Pearl Harbor and that the Chief of Staff and the Chief of Naval Operations had fulfilled their command responsibilities in issuing warning messages to the two commanders.

But the Commission includes among the grounds for charging General Short and Admiral Kimmel with dereliction of duty their failure "to consult and confer" with each other "*respecting the meaning and intent of the warnings*." Thus the Commission in effect concedes that the war warning messages were couched in language so imprecise that the commanders would have to consult and confer in order to discover what the messages meant.

Having made this statement, the Commission goes on to lay some of the blame for the Pearl Harbor catastrophe on the War Department and the Navy Department (that is, upon Secretary Stimson. Secretary Knox, and/or General Marshall and Admiral Stark, whom the Commission had earlier in its report exculpated). The Commission declared that among the

"causes contributory to the success of the Japanese attack were: Emphasis in the warning messages on the probability of aggressive Japanese action in the Far East and on anti-sabotage measures. Failure of the War Department to reply to the message relating to the anti- sabotage measures instituted by the commanding General Hawaiian Department."

Had the Commission been in a mind to do so, it might have added: Failure of the War and Navy Departments to mention in these messages the probability of an attack on Pearl Harbor.

534 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

Secretary Stimson apparently was not considering the attack at Pearl Harbor when the message of November 27 was prepared, for he said: "The main question has been over the message that have shall send to MacArthur" (Tr., Vol. 70, p. 14422). General MacArthur, having the magic intercepts, was in a better position to judge the situation than was Admiral Kimmel who had to rely upon the inadequate and ambiguous information from Washington.

Finally, it is to be noted that the Commission also places among the "contributory causes" the "non-receipt by the interested parties, prior to the attack, of the warning message of December 7, 1941." As a matter of fact the "non-receipt" of this warning message was due to inexcusable delays of high authorities in Washington (conclusion 20).

Hence, it appears that the President's Commission, by direct statements and by implication, admits definitely that the war-warning messages to General Short and Admiral Kimmel were imprecise, indefinite, and constituted no sufficient warning for an all-out alert, particularly the messages to General Short, whose primary duty it was to defend Pearl Harbor and protect the fleet while in the harbor.

The Army Pearl Harbor Board, after a careful examination and comparison of the war-warning messages, concluded that the messages of November 27 were "conflicting" and that the statements in the message to General Short were "inadequate" and "misleading" (APHB, pp. 229, 129-133). The Army Board also criticized the War Department for failure to send "specific directives" to outpost commanders (Ibid; p. 159).

Despite its conclusion that General Short had displayed lack of judgment, the Army Board laid against him no charge of dereliction of duty and made no recommendations in that respect. The Navy Court of Inquiry likewise criticized the war-warning messages for lack of directives as to actions at Pearl Harbor (1-34) and concluded that "no offenses have been committed nor serious blame incurred on the part of any person or persons in the naval service." It recommended no further proceedings be had in the matter (1-46,1-47).

In the testimony and other evidence presented to this Committee there is no proof that warrants traversing the judgment reached by the President's Commission, the Army Pearl Harbor Board, or the Navy Pearl Harbor Court to the effect that the war-warning messages were not in fact clear and unmistakable directives for an all-out alert against a probable Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The fundamental messages in the nature of "war warnings" were those of November 24 and 27.

On November 24, 1941, Admiral Kimmel received the following message marked for action:

"CHANCES OF FAVORABLE OUTCOME OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH JAPAN VERY DOUBTFUL. THIS SITUATION COUPLED WITH STATEMENTS OF JAPANESE GOVERNMENT AND MOVEMENTS THEIR NAVAL AND MILITARY FORCES INDICATE IN OUR OPINION THAT *A SURPRISE AGGRESSIVE MOVEMENT IN ANY DIRECTION INCLUDING ATTACK ON PHILIPPINES OR GUAM IS A POSSIBILITY*. CHIEF OF STAFF HAS SEEN THIS DESPATCH CONCURS AND REQUESTS ACTION ADEES TO INFORM SENIOR ARMY OFFICERS THEIR AREAS. UTMOST SECRECY NECESSARY IN ORDER NOT TO COMPLICATE AN ALREADY TENSE SITUATION OR PRECIPITATE JAPANESE ACTION. GUAM WILL BE INFORMED SEPARATELY (Ex. No. 37, p. 32)."

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 535

On the next day, November 25, Admiral Stark confused the directions in this message and diluted its effectiveness by sending a letter to Admiral Kimmel in which Admiral Stark concluded "I won't go into the pros and cons of what the United States may do. I'll be damned if I know. I wish I did." The postscript of this letter read:

"I held this up pending a meeting with the President and Mr. Hull today. Have been in constant touch with Mr. Hull and it was only after a long talk with him that I sent the message to you a day or two ago showing the gravity of the situation. He confirmed it all in today's meeting, as did the President. Neither would be surprised over a Japanese surprise attack. From any angles an attack on the Philippines would be the most embarrassing thing that could happen to us. There are some here who think it likely to occur. I do not give it the weight others do, but I included it because of the strong feeling among some people. You know I have generally held that it was not time for the Japanese to proceed against Russia. I still do. Also I still rather look for an advance into Thailand, Indo-China, Burma Road areas as the most likely.

"I won't go into the pros or cons of what the United States may do. I will be damned if I know. I wish I did. The only thing I do know is that we may most anything and that's the only thing I know to be prepared for; or we may do nothing I think it is more likely to be "anything" (Exhibit No. 106)."

If any candid person has doubt about their insufficiency to constitute orders for an all-out alert to meet a probable Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, he can allay his doubt by examining carefully the messages of November 27 to General Short and Admiral Kimmel printed below in parallel columns: [1] [but not in the ASCII version, LWJ]

To General Short*

Negotiations with Japanese appear to be terminated *to all practical purposes with only the barest possibilities that the Japanese Government might come back and offer to continue. Japanese future action unpredictable* but hostile action possible at any moment. If hostilities cannot, repeat can not, be avoided the U. S. desires that Japan commit the first overt act. This policy should not, repeat not, be construed as restricting you to a course of action at might jeopardize your defense. Prior to Japanese hostile action you are directed to undertake such reconnaissance and other measures as you deem necessary *but these measures should be carried out so as not, repeat not, to alarm the civil population or disclose intent. Report measures taken*. Should hostilities occur, you will carry out task signed in Rainbow Five as far as they pertain to Japan. *Limit dissemination of this highly secret information to minimum essential officers.

To Admiral Kimmel*

Consider this dispatch a war warning. The negotiations with Japan in an effort to stabilize conditions in the Pacific *have ended*. Japan is expected to make aggressive move within the next few days. An amphibious expedition against either the Philippines, Thai, or Kra Peninsula or possibly Borneo is indicated by the number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organization of their naval task forces*. You will execute a defensive deployment in preparation for carrying out the tasks assigned in WPL-46 only. [2] *Guam, Samoa and Continental Districts have been directed to take appropriate measures against sabotage. A similar warning is being sent by the War Department*. Inform naval district and Army authorities. British to be informed by Spenavo.

*Italics supplied.

The use of the term "war warning" in constant reference to this message of November 27 to Admiral Kimmel creates a wrong im-

[1] In addition to the above messages General Short was sent during the last week in November two other messages relating solely to sabotage.

Admiral Kimmel also received several messages assigning his carriers to the movement of planes to other islands.

[2] WPL 46 was an over-all plan of action to be placed in effect by United States forces, in association with the British and Dutch, when war finally broke out.

536 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

pression. The entire message is of the utmost importance and should be read as a whole rather than adopt two words from it which when taken alone create the wrong impression.

In response to the message to him, General Short soon replied that he had alerted his command against sabotage:

"Report Department alerted to prevent sabotage Liaison with the Navy. Reurad four seven two twenty-seventh (Exhibit 32, p. 12)."

The Chief of the War Plans Division of the Army, General Leonard T. Gerow, saw General Short's reply, noted and initialed it (exhibit 46). General Marshall saw General Short's reply, initialed the document to which it was appended, and routed it to the Secretary of War (exhibit 46) (Tr., Vol. 22, pp. 3722-3723). The Secretary of War saw, noted, and initialed General Short's reply (Exhibit 46).

General Marshall had in May 1941 taken with him to the President an aide memoire concerning the defense of Hawaii. It contained the following sentence:

"In point of sequence sabotage is first to be expected and may within a very limited time cause great damage. On this account and in order to assure strong control, it would be highly desirable to set up a military control of the islands prior to the likelihood of our involvement in the Far East. (Committee Exhibit No. 59.)"

To General Short's response, the War Department made no answer whatever. The President's Commission on Pearl Harbor took note of this failure on the part of the War Department and placed it among the contributory causes of the catastrophe. In their testimony before this Committee, General Marshall and General Gerow admitted that the failure to inform General Short immediately as to the insufficiency of his anti-sabotage alert was a mistake on their part and General Marshall took full responsibility upon himself for this failure (Tr., Vol. 19, pp. 3126 and 3164). Reasonably conclusive evidence that the war warning messages which had been sent to General Short and Admiral Kimmel on November 27 were insufficient to constitute a proper and adequate war warning is provided by General Marshall's decision to send another warning message to General Short on the morning of December 7, despite the insistence of other high authorities in Washington that the previous messages were sufficient.

Two points in the message of November 27 to General Short deserve special consideration. It informed him that "the United States desires Japan to commit the first overt act," if hostilities cannot be avoided. And it also informed him that such measures as he deemed necessary to adopt "should be carried out so as not to alarm the civil population or disclose intent." A limitation on dissemination was to "minimum essential officers."

As to "overt act," it is to be emphasized that an all-out alert for defense against a possible or probable attack by an enemy is not an overt act of war. Nor did the Government of the United States regard it as such, for, on the basis of reports respecting a probable Japanese attack, General Marshall, on June 17, 1940, instructed General Herron, the Commanding General in Hawaii, to order an all-out, full, war alert and the armed forces were set in motion immediately and kept alerted for six weeks (testimony Tr., Vol. 17, pp. 2775 ff.). This message reads:

"Immediately alert complete defense organization to deal with possible trans-Pacific raid comma to greatest extent possible without creating public hysteria  

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 537

or provoking undue curiosity of newspapers or alien agents. Suggest maneuver basis. Maintain alert until further orders. Instructions for secret communication direct with Chief of Staff will be furnished you shortly. Acknowledge."

No United States official then regarded this action as an overt act against Japan. Moreover, when in this 1940 case Washington authorities were worried about hostile Japanese action, they ordered the commanding general at Hawaii to an immediate "complete defense organization to deal with possible trans-Pacific raid" in language that was crystal clear.

The fact is that the War Department and Navy Department did not instruct General Short and Admiral Kimmel to put into effect an all-out war alert, and the War Department was informed by General Short that he had actually put into effect the alert against sabotage. Furthermore, the actions of the War Department in instructing General Short in November and December as the Army Pearl Harbor Board correctly stated, showed "a lack of adequate procedure under which to advise the Hawaiian Department and to control its actions" (APHB, p. 240).

The War Department failed to reply to General Short's anti-sabotage report. It failed to give him further instructions for a stronger alert. These failures, it is reasonable to say, contributed heavily to the unpreparedness existing at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese struck.

It could reasonably follow from this failure that the Army airplanes, instead of being scattered, were bunched together wing to wing; ammunition, except that near the fixed antiaircraft guns, was in storehouses; antiaircraft artillery and two combat divisions were in their permanent quarters and not in combat positions. As the Army Pearl Harbor Board stated:

"Everything was concentrated in close confines by reason of the anti- sabotage alert No. 1. This made them easy targets for an air attack. In short, everything that was done made the situation perfect for an air attack, and the Japanese took full advantage of it (APHB, Report, pp. 193-94). This was known to the War Department by General Short's reply to the message of November 27, but the Department took no action. The President's lack of power under the Constitution to meet the Japanese menace by an attack without a declaration of war by Congress increased the responsibility of high authorities in Washington to use the utmost care in putting the commanders at Pearl Harbor on full alert for defensive actions before the Japanese attack on December 7, 1941. This they did not do.

14. *High authorities in Washington failed in giving proper weight to the evidence before them respecting Japanese designs and operations which indicated that an attack on Pearl Harbor was highly probable and they failed also to emphasize this probability in messages to the Hawaiian commanders.

Washington authorities had before them prior to December 7 conclusive evidence that the Japanese Government and its agents were giving minute attention to American military and naval installations, ship movements, and preparedness in the Hawaiian area, as well as in other areas. But despite their knowledge of this fact, those authorities failed to emphasize, in orders to the Hawaiian commanders, the perils of an attack on Pearl Harbor. They did worse than fail in this respect. With poor judgment as to the effect of their own words upon the com-

538 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

manders, they went out of their way to emphasize the probability of attack elsewhere. The following passage in the war-warning message of November 27 from the Navy Department to Admiral Kimmel reflected the loose thinking that prevailed widely in Washington:

"Japan is expected to make an aggressive move within the next few days. An amphibious expedition against either the Philippines, Thai, or Kra Peninsula, or possibly Borneo, is indicated by the number and equipment of Japanese troops and by the organization of their naval forces."

These words not only displayed the apparent ignorance of Washington authorities respecting Japanese designs on Pearl Harbor but also gratuitously conveyed to Admiral Kimmel a false impression. Although the message of the War Department to General Short on the same day did not contain these misleading words, General Short, in conferring with Admiral Kimmel on "the meaning and intent" of their messages learned about this expectation that the Japanese attack would occur in the Far East.

Notwithstanding their apparent ignorance of the full meaning of Japanese movements in the Southeastern Pacific, Washington authorities knew or should have known from their understandings of parallel action with the British and Dutch, that a Japanese attack on the Philippines, Thai, or the Kra Peninsula meant war with America. It also meant, in view of the strategic principle that the flank of an advancing force must be guarded, that Japan would not leave the strong fleet at Hawaii on its left flank without doing something about it. This was the meaning to Washington of the Japanese move in the Southeastern Pacific. [1] Without having the benefit of these diplomatic understandings, it did not have the same meaning to Admiral Kimmel and General Short.

Testimony and documents before the Committee lend support to in no way traverse the Sixteenth Conclusion of the President's Commission which found:

"The *opinion* prevalent in diplomatic, military, and naval circles and in the public press," was "that any immediate attack by Japan would be in the Far East." [ Italics supplied.]

15. *The failure of Washington authorities to act promptly and consistently in translating intercepts, evaluating information, and sending appropriate instructions to the Hawaiian commanders was in considerable measure due to delays, mismanagement, non-cooperation, unpreparedness, confusion, and negligence on the part of officers in. Washington*.

The record before this Committee is crowded with items of evidence which sustains this conclusion.

As to delays, take for example section 13 of *Japanese Messages Concerning Military Installations, Ship Movements, Etc*. [Exhibit 2]. Pages 16-29 give "messages translated after December 7, 1941." Here are messages exchanged by the Japanese Government and its agents

[1] Meanwhile we are exchanging views with the British Government in regard to the entire situation and the tremendous problems which are presented, with a view to effective coordinating of efforts in the most practicable way possible. * * *

Indirectly influencing that situation: American military and naval defensive forces the Philippine Islands, which are being steadily increased, and the United States Fleet at Hawaii, lying as they do along the flank of any Japanese military movement into China from Indo-China, are ever present and significant factors in the whole situation, as are the increasing British and Dutch defensive preparations in their territories to the south (Exhibit 16, State Department message, approved by President Roosevelt and transmitted through Ambassador Hu Shih to Chiang Kai-shek).

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 539

which were intercepted by American intelligence services before December 7, *but not translated until after December 7. Special attention should be drawn to the message from a Japanese agent in Honolulu to Tokyo on December 6, 1941, listing the ships at anchor in Pearl Harbor on that day and reporting to Tokyo:

"It appears that no air reconnaissance is being conducted by the fleet air arm"

a fact with which high authorities in Washington were not acquainted, if the testimony before this Committee is accepted as accurate and comprehensive.

One of the great tragedies was that a message sent from Honolulu to Tokyo December 6, 1941, was not translated until December 8, 1941, after the attack. The following appeared in the message "at the present time there are no signs of barrage balloon equipment. I imagine that in all probability there is considerable opportunity left to take advantage for a surprise attack against these places" (Exhibit 2, p. 27)

Another message intercepted and translated in the rough and available on the desk of a responsible officer in the Naval Intelligence on the afternoon of December 6, 1941, provided for land-sea signals at Hawaii. These signals were intended to disclose to Japanese the location of our ships in Pearl Harbor apparently nothing was done about the message either in evaluating it in Washington or transmitting it to the commanders in Hawaii (Exhibit 2, p. 22).

As to mismanagement, non-cooperation, unpreparedness, and negligence, the evidence cited in the following pages is sufficient (Conclusions 8, 10, and 16).

Since President Roosevelt was convinced as early as the middle of August that a clash with Japan was a matter of a few weeks, the responsible officers of his administration had ample time to strengthen, organize, and consolidate the agencies in Washington, especially the Army and Navy communication and intelligence services, in such a manner to assure the speedy translations of intercepts, prompt distribution to the appropriate officials, swift evaluation, and proper decisions based on such information and evaluation. Lack of time cannot be pleaded as an excuse for this failure, despite the difficulties involved in securing competent and reliable specialists.

General Miles admitted at the hearing on December 3, 1945, that there had been no meeting of the joint Army-Navy Intelligence Committee between October 11 and December 8 or 9, 1941, and declared:

"I regret to say, Mr. Congressman there were still discussions and difficulties going on between the war and Navy Departments as to just what the functions of that committee would be, where it would sit, what rooms it would have, what secretary it would be allowed, et cetra."

There was lack of cooperation between the Army and the Navy regarding the fourteen parts of the Japanese final message between 9:30 p. m. on December 6 and the morning of December 7 about 10:30. The existence of the first thirteen parts of this Japanese message, which President Roosevelt received between 9 and 10 o'clock on Saturday evening and interpreted as meaning war, was known more or less accidentally to certain high Army and Navy authorities about the same time. But Admiral Stark testified before this Committee at the hearing on January 1, 1946, that the first thirteen parts and the di-


540 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

rective for delivery to Secretary Hull at one o'clock Sunday, did not come to his attention until late on the morning of December 7. Admiral Stark *thought* that he went to his office between 10:30 and 11 o'clock that morning and that as nearly as he could remember he did not see the directive message for one o'clock delivery until about 10:40 that morning. It was the final part of the Japanese message, and the one o'clock directive that convinced General Marshall that war was immediately at hand and led him to send the warning dispatch which reached General Short after the Japanese attack.

For this non-cooperation and mismanagement, high authorities in Washington were fully responsible. The President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, General Marshall, and Admiral Stark were all in Washington or environs. It is true that General Marshall and Admiral Stark when they appeared before this Committee could not remember where they were during the evening and night of December 6 but they were at least accessible to officers of the Army and Navy Departments, or should have been; hence, there was no excuse for the failure of these high authorities to assemble on the evening of December 6, inquire into the defensive preparedness of outpost Commanders, and send peremptory directives to them.

The setting up of so many councils and committees, and the intermeddling of so many men created such a state of confusion in Washington that the high principle of *individual responsibility* was apparently lost to sight. The result was that no one among the President's chief subordinates was enough concerned on the night of December 6 to do anything about the 13 parts which indicated a crucial stage in Japanese- American relations. (See Conclusion No. 10.)

In the lower, operating echelons of the Army and Navy, on the other hand, men seemed to see or to sense the gathering crisis and even the immediate danger to Hawaii. They tried to take steps to meet it but were discouraged by their superiors. This was notably evident in the testimony of Captain Arthur McCollum, Chief of the Far Eastern Section of Naval Intelligence. Alarmed by conditions on December 4, 1941, he prepared a dispatch to fully alert the fleets in the Pacific. He tried to get permission to send this dispatch at a meeting attended by Admiral Stark, Ingersoll, Turner, and Wilkinson but was discouraged from doing so on the ground that the messages of November 24 and 27 to Admiral Kimmel was sufficient. He protested that it was not sufficient and that he would like to send his December 4 dispatch anyway. The dispatch he prepared and wanted to send was never sent, and the result was tragic. (See testimony of Captain McCollum, Tr., Vol. No. 49, p. 9132 ff.)

Finally, there is no excuse for the failure of General Marshall and Admiral Stark to be on the alert early Sunday morning or for their failure, after they did meet near the middle of the morning, to reach the outpost Commanders with a definite war-warning message before the Japanese attack came at Pearl Harbor. This failure was all the more inexcusable for the reason that some time in July 1941, the practice of sending intercepts to General Short and Admiral Kimmel had been abandoned.

16. *The President of the United States was responsible for the failure to enforce continuous, efficient, and appropriate cooperation among the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Staff,

PEARL HARBOR ATTACK 541

and the Chief of Naval Operations, in evaluating information and dispatching clear and positive orders to the Hawaiian commanders as events indicated the growing imminence of war; for the Constitution and laws of the United States vested in the President full power, as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, to compel such cooperation and vested this power in him alone with a view to establishing his responsibility to the people of the United States*.

As to the power, and therefore of necessity, the responsibility of the President in relation to the chain of events leading to the catastrophe at Pearl Harbor, there can be no doubt. The terms of the Constitution and the laws in this respect are clear beyond all cavil.  

The Constitution vests in the President the whole and indivisible executive power subject to provisions for the approval of appointments and treaties by the Senate.

The President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints high officers, civil and military.

He is Chief Magistrate in all civil affairs, including those related to the maintenance and operation of the Military and Naval Establishments.

Under the law he conducts all diplomatic negotiations on behalf the United States, assigning to his appointee, the Secretary of State, such duties connected therewith as he sees fit, always subject to his own instructions and authorizations.

Under the Constitution the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States, and with the approval of the Senate he appoints all high military and naval officers. He assigns them to their duties in his discretion except in the case of the Chief Staff and Chief of Naval Operations these appointments must approved by the Senate.

And why did the framers of the Constitution vest these immense powers in one magistrate not in a directory or a single official checked by a council, as was proposed in the Convention of 1787?

The answer to this question is to be found in No. 70 of *The Federalist*. The purpose of establishing a single rather than a plural executive was to assure "energy in the Executive," "a due dependence the people," and "a due responsibility." A plural Executive, it is there argued, "tends to deprive the people of the two greatest securities they can have for the faithful exercise of any delegated power, *first*, the restraints of public opinion * * *; and, *secondly*, the opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness the misconduct persons they trust * * *."

The acts of Congress providing for the organization, operations, powers, and duties of the Military Establishments under the President particularized the powers and duties of the President in relation them; in brief, they empowered him to issue orders and instructions the civil Secretaries and also directly to the Chief of Staff and the Chief of Naval Operations.

Such are the terms of the Constitution and the laws relative to the Chief Executive.

From March 4, 1933, to December 7, 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt was President and Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States and in him was vested all Executive powers under the Constitution and the laws.

542 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

He appointed Cordell Hull as Secretary of State in 1933 and retained him in that office during this period.

He appointed all the Secretaries of War and of the Navy during this period.

He selected, or approved the choice of, all Chiefs of Staff and Chiefs of Naval Operations during this period.

He selected, or approved the choice of, all the men who served as military and naval commanders in charge of the Hawaiian area and he assigned them to their posts of duty.

In support of the doctrine that the President is entrusted with supreme Executive responsibility and cannot divest himself of it, we have more recent authority. Speaking at a press conference on December 20, 1940, on a subject of administrative actions, President Roosevelt aid: "There were two or three cardinal principles; and one of them is the fact that you cannot, under the Constitution, set up a second President of the United States. In other words, the Constitution states one man is responsible. Now that man can delegate, surely, but in the delegation he does not delegate away any part of the responsibility from the ultimate responsibility that rests on him" (Public Papers, 1940 volume, p. 623).

Although there were two departments for the administration of military and naval affairs during this period, they were both under the supreme direction of the President as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief in all matters relative to separate and joint planning or defense and war, to disposition of forces and materiel, to preparedness for operation in case of an attack. In respect of the President's power, the two departments were one agency for over-all planning and operational purposes.

The President had power to issue directions and orders to the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy and also directly and indirectly to the Chief of Staff and the Chief of Naval Operations and on occasions used this power.

Furthermore, under the Reorganization Act of 1939, President Roosevelt had enjoyed the power, by grant of Congress, to reorganize the Department of War and the Department of the Navy if he deemed it necessary in the interest of efficiency and more effective cooperation between the Departments. Since he did not reorganize the two Departments under that act, he must have deemed them properly constructed as they were.

By virtue of the powers vested in him the President had, during this period, the responsibility for determining the reciprocal relations of diplomatic decisions and war plans.

In fine, Secretary Hull, Secretary Stimson, Secretary Knox, General Marshall, Admiral Stark, General Short, and Admiral Kimmel were all men of President Roosevelt's own choice not hang-over appointees from another administration to which incompetence may be ascribed and the President had ample power to direct them, coordinate their activities, and bring about a concentration of their talents and energies in the defense of the United States.  

Thus endowed with power and in full charge of diplomatic negotiations, the President decided long before December 7, at least as early as the Atlantic Conference in August, that war with Japan was a  
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Investigations of Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron