Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy - Ludwig von Mises ...

Joint Congressional Committee, Pearl Harbor Attack: Part 2 705
Kimmel: Th e last answer I had on that subject before the attack
was . . . Admiral Stark’s letter of November 25, which I received
on December 3. 82
Ferguson then asked Kimmel if he had known that Hart in
the Philippines had gotten word from Singapore on December 6
to the eff ect that the British had “received assurance of American
armed support” under several eventualities—if the Japanese
attacked them; if the Japanese attacked the Dutch; or if the
Japanese attacked Siam or the Isthmus of Kra and the British and
Dutch went to their defense. Obviously this would mean that the
United States’s Asiatic Fleet would be asked to assist the British
in Singapore. 83 Hart had been sending out “fl ying missions” to
observe the movements of the Japanese convoys. He had conferred
in Manila with British Admiral Th omas S.V. Phillips on
how best to coordinate U.S. and British eff orts and had reported
to Washington their arrangements for cooperating. 84 However,
the news from Singapore that the British had “received assurance
of American armed support” was a surprise to Hart. He wired
Washington for instructions. 85 Turner prepared a reply for Hart.
“It was still in the process of drafting at the time of the attack,”
Turner said. He believed that it “was prepared in the forenoon of
the 7th.” 86
Ferguson: So someone knew here in Washington before the
attack came what was to be sent to Admiral Hart in reply to
his inquiry, whereas you had made a similar inquiry and, as I
understand it, you had no information sent to you, that you
82Ibid., pp. 2871–72. See part 16, pp. 2223–25, Stark’s November 25 letter.
83Ibid., part 10, pp. 5082–83, December 5, 1941, telegram from John M.
Creighton, (ALUSNA) naval attaché in Singapore, to Hart.
84Ibid., part 4, pp. 1933–35, Hart-Phillips fi ve-part report, December 7, Philippine
time, i.e., December 6 in Washington.
85Ibid., part 14, p. 1412, CINCAF telegram 070645.
86Ibid., part 4, pp. 1935–36, Turner testimony.