Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy - Ludwig von Mises ...
Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy - Ludwig von Mises ... Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy - Ludwig von Mises ...
Army Pearl Harbor Board 479 By “this other stuff ,” Saff ord meant “the declaration of war,” i.e., the 14-part reply to our “ultimatum” that the Japanese sent December 6–7, and their December 7 “One p.m. Message.” Th at, Saff ord said, “is in their [high-class, “purple”] machine which they think no one can read, and they are still talking their fool heads off in it, particularly from Germany.” 141 Even though the “Winds Execute” had been sent in the “low-grade” cipher, Saff ord said it was extremely signifi cant. By announcing the imminence of a break in relations, or of an outbreak of war, with the United States and Britain, Japan was explaining the reason for her November 25 deadline, later changed to November 29. And the deadline showed that the break in relations it portended was not just talk. Th us the “Winds Execute” “made the deadline message mean a lot more, and the deadline message made that [the Winds Code Execute] mean a lot more.” 142 Saff ord told the APHB that we knew from Japanese intercepts picked up December 1 and 3, 1941 that Japanese embassies and consulates in London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Manila, Batavia, and Washington had been told to destroy their codes, ciphers, and code machines. “[T]his destruction of codes immediately threw the ‘Winds’ message into prominence,” Saff ord said. 141 Ibid. Before, we couldn’t understand why they had this [“Winds Code”] setup arranged. It seemed a foolish thing to do . . . but they had this in mind, I think: Well, all right, one step short of war. Th ey are destroying their codes to play safe, but they are still reserving the decision as to peace or war to come in the “Winds” message, which was the reason that, from the fi rst on, we thought the “Winds” message was so highly important, and yet that information did not get out to either 142 Ibid., p. 2370.
480 Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy Commander-in-Chief Pacifi c Fleet or Commander-in-Chief Asiatic Fleet until 48 hours after we had the news. 143 Saff ord had recognized the signifi cance of the “Winds Code Execute” at the time. However, his responsibilities were limited to communications security. “Th e evaluation [of a message] was out of my hands, and that is a function of Naval Intelligence.” 144 Th us, Saff ord had focused his December 4 messages to the naval attachés necessarily on the issue of security. Grunert then turned to another subject. Saff ord had “indicated . . . that at sometime in the not too distant past it was not intended to give the Navy Court of Inquiry and the Army Board certain secret information.” Had special instructions been issued to that eff ect? Th at was “rather a long story,” Saff ord said. He explained that Kimmel had asked to see the Hart report. On the basis of information revealed there, Kimmel had requested permission for his counsel, Captain Lavender, “to inspect all the fi les out at 20G, communications intelligence fi les, to see what information had been in existence in the Navy Department.” Lavender had been permitted to see the fi les and had then asked for copies of about 60 messages. Th e department had assembled the intercepts, turned them over to the director of naval communications, and notifi ed S.I.S. S.I.S. had protested. Th e assistant secretary of the Navy, Ralph A. Bard, had also disapproved of their release. But when Navy Secretary Forrestal, then in London, returned to Washington, he reversed that decision and directed that the intercepts be made available to the NCI. But the APHB had not obtained copies. Saff ord suggested they put in a request to the secretary of the Navy. 145 143Ibid., pp. 2396–97. 144Ibid., p. 2379. 145Ibid., p. 2375.
- Page 451 and 452: 428 Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fru
- Page 453 and 454: 430 Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fru
- Page 455 and 456: 432 Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fru
- Page 457 and 458: 434 Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fru
- Page 459 and 460: 436 Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fru
- Page 461 and 462: 438 Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fru
- Page 464 and 465: 441 22. Army Pearl Harbor Board The
- Page 466 and 467: Army Pearl Harbor Board 443 attack
- Page 468 and 469: Army Pearl Harbor Board 445 the Haw
- Page 470 and 471: Army Pearl Harbor Board 447 interpr
- Page 472 and 473: Army Pearl Harbor Board 449 a grave
- Page 474 and 475: Army Pearl Harbor Board 451 been so
- Page 476 and 477: Army Pearl Harbor Board 453 Grunert
- Page 478 and 479: Army Pearl Harbor Board 455 view of
- Page 480 and 481: Army Pearl Harbor Board 457 positio
- Page 482 and 483: Army Pearl Harbor Board 459 then di
- Page 484 and 485: Army Pearl Harbor Board 461 of furt
- Page 486 and 487: Army Pearl Harbor Board 463 And he
- Page 488 and 489: Army Pearl Harbor Board 465 (2) Wha
- Page 490 and 491: Army Pearl Harbor Board 467 they co
- Page 492 and 493: Army Pearl Harbor Board 469 However
- Page 494 and 495: Army Pearl Harbor Board 471 Saturda
- Page 496 and 497: Army Pearl Harbor Board 473 the pre
- Page 498 and 499: Army Pearl Harbor Board 475 APHB me
- Page 500 and 501: Army Pearl Harbor Board 477 they ha
- Page 504 and 505: Army Pearl Harbor Board 481 Marshal
- Page 506 and 507: Army Pearl Harbor Board 483 of the
- Page 508 and 509: Army Pearl Harbor Board 485 Departm
- Page 510 and 511: Army Pearl Harbor Board 487 clock o
- Page 512 and 513: Army Pearl Harbor Board 489 the Chi
- Page 514 and 515: Army Pearl Harbor Board 491 so crit
- Page 516 and 517: 493 23. The Navy Court of Inquiry (
- Page 518 and 519: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
- Page 520 and 521: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
- Page 522 and 523: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
- Page 524 and 525: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
- Page 526 and 527: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
- Page 528 and 529: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
- Page 530 and 531: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
- Page 532 and 533: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
- Page 534 and 535: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
- Page 536 and 537: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
- Page 538 and 539: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
- Page 540 and 541: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
- Page 542 and 543: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
- Page 544 and 545: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
- Page 546 and 547: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
- Page 548 and 549: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
- Page 550 and 551: The Navy Court of Inquiry (July 24-
480 <strong>Pearl</strong> <strong>Harbor</strong>: <strong>The</strong> <strong>Seeds</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Fruits</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Infamy</strong><br />
Comm<strong>and</strong>er-in-Chief Pacifi c Fleet or Comm<strong>and</strong>er-in-Chief<br />
Asiatic Fleet until 48 hours after we had the news. 143<br />
Saff ord had recognized the signifi cance <strong>of</strong> the “Winds Code<br />
Execute” at the time. However, his responsibilities were limited<br />
to communications security. “Th e evaluation [<strong>of</strong> a message] was<br />
out <strong>of</strong> my h<strong>and</strong>s, <strong>and</strong> that is a function <strong>of</strong> Naval Intelligence.” 144<br />
Th us, Saff ord had focused his December 4 messages to the naval<br />
attachés necessarily on the issue <strong>of</strong> security.<br />
Grunert then turned to another subject. Saff ord had “indicated<br />
. . . that at sometime in the not too distant past it was not<br />
intended to give the Navy Court <strong>of</strong> Inquiry <strong>and</strong> the Army Board<br />
certain secret information.” Had special instructions been issued<br />
to that eff ect?<br />
Th at was “rather a long story,” Saff ord said. He explained<br />
that Kimmel had asked to see the Hart report. On the basis <strong>of</strong><br />
information revealed there, Kimmel had requested permission<br />
for his counsel, Captain Lavender, “to inspect all the fi les out at<br />
20G, communications intelligence fi les, to see what information<br />
had been in existence in the Navy Department.” Lavender had<br />
been permitted to see the fi les <strong>and</strong> had then asked for copies<br />
<strong>of</strong> about 60 messages. Th e department had assembled the intercepts,<br />
turned them over to the director <strong>of</strong> naval communications,<br />
<strong>and</strong> notifi ed S.I.S. S.I.S. had protested. Th e assistant secretary <strong>of</strong><br />
the Navy, Ralph A. Bard, had also disapproved <strong>of</strong> their release.<br />
But when Navy Secretary Forrestal, then in London, returned<br />
to Washington, he reversed that decision <strong>and</strong> directed that the<br />
intercepts be made available to the NCI. But the APHB had not<br />
obtained copies. Saff ord suggested they put in a request to the<br />
secretary <strong>of</strong> the Navy. 145<br />
143Ibid., pp. 2396–97.<br />
144Ibid., p. 2379.<br />
145Ibid., p. 2375.