For Keith Willshaw...

This will probably appear in the wrong place thanks to a buggy news server.

Denyav wrote in message ...
As a result Kimmel and Short were sent a message that
began "This is to be considered a war warning"

They also added that Pearl Harbor was only possible target.period.

The war warnings did not mention Pearl Harbor as the target,

The War warning sent to Pearl on 26 November, to the Army,

"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 the navy,

"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. 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."

The navy received a copy of the army message on 28 November.

Strategy and Command, the first two years by Louis Morton, (US Army
in WWII, War in the Pacific series)

page 119,

"In view of the seriousness of the situation, the Army and Navy chiefs
felt that commanders in the Pacific should be warned immediately.
Already, the Navy had sent out word on the 24th-to be passed on to
the Army commanders-that prospects for an agreement with Japan
were slight and that Japanese troop movements indicated that "a
surprise aggressive movement in any direction, including attack on
Philippines or Guam" was a possibility. [37] Now, on the 27th,
Stimson asked General Gerow whether the Army should not send a
warning. Gerow showed him the Navy message of the 24th, but this
failed to satisfy Stimson who observed that the President wanted a
warning message sent to the Philippines. As a result, a fresh warning,
considered a "final alert," was sent to Hawaii, the Philippines, Panama,
and San Francisco. The commander of each of these garrisons was
told of the status of the negotiations with Japan, the imminence of
hostilities, and the desirability of having Japan commit the "first overt
act." Each was instructed to "undertake such reconnaissance and other
measures" as he thought necessary and to carry out the tasks assigned
in the war plan if hostilities occurred. With the exception of MacArthur,
each of the commanders was also warned not to alarm the civilian
population or to "disclose intent." At the same time G-2 of the War
Department sent an additional and briefer message to Hawaii and
Panama, but not to the Philippines, warning against subversive activities."

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_04.htm

has the text on line, in this case on page 117. Strange as it might seem
the army basically sent the same message to all its Pacific commands.

So which is it ?
Did he try to contact people or do nothing

Do you think that Navy and Army units in Pasific were alerted and waiting for
Japanase to attack?

The units were alerted but history showed not to the extent they
needed to be.

Hardly a blueprint of the Pearl Harbor attack plan.

You could only say that if officers of US military intelligence had NOT told to
their superiors cleary "Target is Pearl Harbor" but they did say exactly that
since Nov,28.

There was no Pearl Harbor warning delivered to the US and the last
people to know of one would have been the army intelligence, they
were not watching the IJN.

The diplomatic cables give no warning on any of the Japanese
attacks, only that there was a high probability someone would
be attacked.

Title: The "Magic" background of Pearl Harbor.
Publisher: [Washington] : Dept. of Defence, U.S.A. : for sale by
the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., [1978]
Description: 5 v. in 8 : maps (on lining paper) ; 27 cm.

It contains the cables, including decode dates, the transcripts
of bugged Japan-US phone calls and state department assessments
of the various meetings.

There is a project at Purdue University to put the above books into
electronic form with an index, I am unsure about its current status.

See also

Author: Komatsu, Keiichiro.
Title: Origins of the Pacific War and the importance of 'magic'.
Publisher: New York : St. Martin's Press, 1999.

Where as part of the work the author looks at the problems with translating
Japanese into English and what sort of effects mistranslations had.

So since Nov,28 they knew the target thanks to work of a few men.

No, the US intelligence system never predicted the attack on Pearl.
Some in US Army intelligence did pick up the "things are automatically
going to happen" message and then predicted the Japanese would
begin the war on the first Sunday after the deadline, that is 30 November
1941. This did not help the credibility of later predictions.

Since their superiors did not respond to their warnings one of
them,Thurman,sidestepped the line of command and personaly went all way up to
White House,with very clear warning of japanase attack with the name of the
target "Pearl Harbor".

Which work of fiction states this?

The Thurman knew it line appears to be part of the Pearl Harbor
movie plot. Presumably the system noticed it was really Dan
Aykroyd in disguise with false ID.

See for example, http://www.epinions.com/content_68513926788

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email

Title: The "Magic" background of Pearl Harbor.
Publisher: [Washington] : Dept. of Defence, U.S.A. : for sale by
the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., [1978]
Description: 5 v. in 8 : maps (on lining paper) ; 27 cm.


Pardon me,but but by repeating official stories we cannot learn much more than
what we already know.

Kimmel and/or his descendants were given chance to defend themselves and to
challenge to official version only TWICE,one Navy investigation (There were
several Navy investigations but in only one he was allowed to defend himself
aganist charges !!!) the other was Congressional and both of them came to
conclusion that Kimmel should be exhonorated.period.
Kimmels defense were basically "FDR-Stimson-Marshall trio wanted it happen and
made it happen by witholding information that was known in Washington and
London.

All "official" facts were known to panelists but they still accepted Kimmels
version.

If one entity becomes evidence collector ,DA,police,judge,jury and executioner
the evidence that they present becomes irrelevant.

The Thurman knew it line appears to be part of the Pearl Harbor
movie plot. Presumably the system noticed it was really Dan
Aykroyd in disguise with false ID.

Military Intelligence Characters of this movie were based on real characters
moreover they and/or their relatives were interviewed by the the makers of the
movie.

There was no Pearl Harbor warning delivered to the US and the last
people to know of one would have been the army intelligence, they
were not watching the IJN.

Well,we are talking about pre-CIA even pre-OSS era,if you dont count FBI,they
were nations only intel agency,
BTW Adm.Kramer was Thurmans real life superior too.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
Title: The "Magic" background of Pearl Harbor.
Publisher: [Washington] : Dept. of Defence, U.S.A. : for sale by
the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., [1978]
Description: 5 v. in 8 : maps (on lining paper) ; 27 cm.


Pardon me,but but by repeating official stories we cannot learn much more
than
what we already know.

Kimmel and/or his descendants were given chance to defend themselves and
to
challenge to official version only TWICE,one Navy investigation (There
were
several Navy investigations but in only one he was allowed to defend
himself
aganist charges !!!) the other was Congressional and both of them came to
conclusion that Kimmel should be exhonorated.period.


No they didnt - period
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/congress/part_5.html

Quote
The story of Admiral Kimmel's administration of the Pacific Fleet and
supervision of the Fourteenth Naval District as well as General Short's
administration of the Hawaiian Department in the critical days before
December 7 is the epitome of worthy plans and purposes which were never
implemented. The job of an administrator is only half completed upon the
issuance of an order; it is discharged when he determines the order has
been executed.
/Quote

Keith

From: (Denyav)
Date: 6/9/2004 10:23 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Presidents don't sign off on Congressional "findings."

Actually Congress passed a law and recommed exonoration of Kimmel
This law was the result of the Congressional "findings".
As far as I know Administration(s) is still dragging its feet.

But that's not what you said. Please keep your stories straight.

Now what bill was passed to clear Kimmel? Who presented it in the Senate and
who presented it in the House? When was this done?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

No they didnt - period
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/congress/part_5.html


Mr.Willshaw you keep offering old documents and/or monkey court archieves as
evidence.
I wonder if you are aware that US Congress passed a resolution in 1999 and
requested full exonoration of Kimmel.
You are still trying to stick old documents that were produced and used by the
establisment to cover up their activites.

But times are changed now not many are taking offical evidences given in old
documents as evidences at all.

Many things that you say "did not happen" is (like secret White House meeting
in the eve of Pearl Harbor attack and discussion of Attack) DID happen
according to sworn testimonies of the Officers.

So basically you are telling everyone "dont believe them,believe only to our
official version".Heck even Members of Congress do not buy it anymore.

Truth is Mr.Willshaw FDR promised nation not to enter WWII unless attacked and
he kept his promise.

Now what bill was passed to clear Kimmel? Who presented it in the Senate and
who presented it in the House? When was this done?


Bill passed in 1999.
I got to check for the sponsors.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...

I wonder if you are aware that US Congress passed a resolution in 1999 and
requested full exonoration of Kimmel.

Just to set the record straight, it wasn't a resolution.....it was in May 2000,
and it was an amendment to the 2001 Defense Bill that requested that both Adm
Kimmel and Gen. Short be advanced posthumously on the promotion list to their
highest respective grades in which they had served. It was passed unanimously,
but President Clinton declined to sign it. It was again presented the following
year, but President Bush also declined to sign it. No reason was given in both
cases.

George Z.

Just to set the record straight, it wasn't a resolution.....it was in May
2000,
and it was an amendment to the 2001 Defense Bill that requested that both Adm
Kimmel and Gen. Short be advanced posthumously on the promotion list to their

ighest respective grades in which they had served. It was passed
unanimously,
but President Clinton declined to sign it. It was again presented the
following
year, but President Bush also declined to sign it. No reason was given in
both
cases.

George Z.

Thanks for correction,I thought it was in 1999.
But as you correctly stated no president ever signed it and I think no
president will ever sign it.
Even no president gave reason for refusal,the reason is very obvious.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
The empire was an idea who's time had past, Britains
didnt want to be the slavemasters of the world.

Really?,I think the British empire officially ended during Suez crisis
when US
told British rather unexpectedly (at least for the Brits) "stay at home or
else".
US engagement in WWII had two goals:
1)Defeating Nazi Germany
2)Destroying British Empire

Till Suez crisis Brits hoped that US might want to forget second goal,but
US
had other plans.

US engagement in WW2 was in response to an attack just before a declaration
of war by Japan and another attack just after a declaration of war by
Germany.

Please read some history.