Burning Down the House

Historians of the period, however, generally reject its thesis, pointing to several key errors and reliance on doubtful sources.
Reviewers were generally dismissive of Stinnett’s claims, as many of his claims appear to be baseless. An article in Salon quotes CIA historian Donald Steury:

[Stinnett] concocted this theory pretty much from whole cloth. Those who have been able to check his alleged sources also are unanimous in their condemnation of his methodology. Basically, the author has made up his sources; when he does not make up the source, he lies about what the source says.

Stinnett’s starting point is a memorandum written by Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum in October 1940, which was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. McCollum, then head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, discussed the strategic situation in the Pacific and ended with a list of eight actions directed at the Japanese threat. Stinnett characterizes the actions as “provocations” and states his belief in McCollum’s point F (“Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands”) was intended to lure the Japanese into attacking it. Stinnett asserts that the overall intent was to provoke an act of war that would allow Roosevelt to enter into active conflict with Germany in support of the United Kingdom.

Critical points in Stinnett’s argument were disputed by military historians. His characterization of the McCollum memorandum was not accepted by Conrad Crane, Chief of Historical Services and Support at the United States Army Heritage and Education Center, who wrote:

“A close reading shows that its recommendations were supposed to deter and contain Japan, while better preparing the United States for a future conflict in the Pacific. There is an offhand remark that an overt Japanese act of war would make it easier to garner public support for actions against Japan, but the document’s intent was not
to ensure that event happened.” 

This means that Stinnett attributes to McCollum a position McCollum expressly refuted. Furthermore, McCollum’s own sworn testimony also refutes it.

Stinnett argues that the attacking fleet was detected by radio and intelligence intercepts, but the information was deliberately withheld from Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, the commander of the Pacific Fleet at that time.

Walter Short and Kimmel were ordered to remain in a defensive posture with respect to the Japanese. Stinnett claims that intelligence intercepts were deliberately withheld from them to prevent them from mounting an adequate defense. He also claims that radio traffic was intercepted from the fleet as it approached Hawaii, allowing it to be tracked, but again, the information was withheld so that the defenders would be unprepared. All, says Stinnett, was directed from the White House itself with Roosevelt’s knowledge and at his behest.

Philip Zelikow, writing in Foreign Affairs, objected to Stinnett’s claim that the Japanese naval code was being read at the time (the JN-25 code was changed shortly before the attack and was not decrypted again until May 1942), an objection also raised by Crane. A review posted on the U.S. Naval Cryptologic Veterans Association website addresses the intelligence issues in greater detail and disputes claims that the fleet was detected through direction finding; the author also criticizes Stinnett’s use of testimony from Robert Ogg, originally identified as “Seaman Z” by John Toland in his 1986 book. Indeed, Ogg expressly denies saying what Toland quotes him as saying. In their annotations on the 1995 Pentagon study of the attack, Frederic Borch and Daniel Martinez, chief historian at the USS Arizona Memorial, also dispute these claims and call his claims “totally false”.

Stinnett’s claims of “intercepts” are contradicted by Japanese testimony, which unequivocally state there were none, and even transmitter keys were removed from radios of ships in the task force. (The claim of a need for “low-power radio” made by Stinnett ignores standard fleet practice under radio silence, use of flag or blinker.) Moreover, his “intercepts” do not amount to direction finding bearings, contrary to his claims, while his document allegedly showing the plot of these nonexistent bearings contains nothing of the kind.
“If there was this vast and humongous conspiracy”, its members had to number in the hundreds. Among them would have to be Lt. Kermit Tyler who, on the morning of 7 December, was contacted about a radar contact on an inbound flight, and told the operators to forget about it. One would also have to include the Navy duty officer, who was asleep when the destroyer USS Ward first tried to report a minisub contact,] thereby losing over three hours’ warning. It would also include the officer who ordered USAAC fighters be parked in close proximity to avoid sabotage. Also included would be the senior antiaircraft officers, who ordered ammunition to be locked up far from the guns.

Furthermore, Stinnett makes numerous and contradictory claims of the number of messages originated by the Kido Butai, attributing to it messages from shore stations, Yamamoto’s flagship (which was not accompanying the task force), deception measures, and traffic from before the task force even sailed. Moreover, he finds “not a single one” originating from the Kido Butai after it sortied 26 November.

David Kahn commented on the book, stating that it had “basic errors of fact” and “tendentious interpretations” and was “an extraordinarily sloppy book”. Examples include Stinett commenting on Japanese code wheels which did not exist, and misreading a date that said 15-5-41 as December 5, 1941. Stinnett also mistakenly believed that provoking Japan into an act of war against another nation would trigger the mutual assistance provision of the Axis Tripartite Pact.

Historian Gordon Prange, in an earlier work, noted that a war between the U.S. and Japan was contrary to Roosevelt’s desire to aid Britain in her fight against Germany, and Prime Minister Churchill’s desire to avoid “another war”. Prange, the foremost authority on the Pearl Harbor attack, characterizes the conspiracy theory as “an absurdity.” British historian John Keegan writes that Stinnett’s charges of conspiracy “defy logic”, and fail to show how Roosevelt could have succeeded in bringing US Army Chief George Marshall and US Navy Chief Harold Stark into the conspiracy. Another British historian, Ronald Lewin, calls Stinnett’s theory “moonshine.” Military intelligence historian Roberta Wohlstetter wrote that Stinnett conflated FDR’s desire for an incident which might serve as a catalyst for war against Germany, with FDR’s supposed foreknowledge of such an incident provoking war with Japan. Presidential historian Joseph E. Persico found that FDR drafted an appeal to peace to the Emperor of Japan the night before the Pearl Harbor attack, which historian Hervie Haughler said could not be the action of someone who wished for war with Japan.

Historians of the period, however, generally reject its thesis, pointing to several key errors and reliance on doubtful sources.

Reviewers were generally dismissive of Stinnett’s claims, as many of his claims appear to be baseless. An article in Salon quotes CIA historian Donald Steury:

[Stinnett] concocted this theory pretty much from whole cloth. Those who have been able to check his alleged sources also are unanimous in their condemnation of his methodology. Basically, the author has made up his sources; when he does not make up the source, he lies about what the source says.

Stinnett’s starting point is a memorandum written by Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum in October 1940, which was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. McCollum, then head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, discussed the strategic situation in the Pacific and ended with a list of eight actions directed at the Japanese threat. Stinnett characterizes the actions as “provocations” and states his belief in McCollum’s point F (“Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands”) was intended to lure the Japanese into attacking it. Stinnett asserts that the overall intent was to provoke an act of war that would allow Roosevelt to enter into active conflict with Germany in support of the United Kingdom.

Critical points in Stinnett’s argument were disputed by military historians. His characterization of the McCollum memorandum was not accepted by Conrad Crane, Chief of Historical Services and Support at the United States Army Heritage and Education Center, who wrote: “A close reading shows that its recommendations were supposed to deter and contain Japan, while better preparing the United States for a future conflict in the Pacific. There is an offhand remark that an overt Japanese act of war would make it easier to garner public support for actions against Japan, but the document’s intent was not to ensure that event happened.” This means that Stinnett attributes to McCollum a position McCollum expressly refuted. Furthermore, McCollum’s own sworn testimony also refutes it.

Stinnett argues that the attacking fleet was detected by radio and intelligence intercepts, but the information was deliberately withheld from Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, the commander of the Pacific Fleet at that time.

Walter Short and Kimmel were ordered to remain in a defensive posture with respect to the Japanese. Stinnett claims that intelligence intercepts were deliberately withheld from them to prevent them from mounting an adequate defense. He also claims that radio traffic was intercepted from the fleet as it approached Hawaii, allowing it to be tracked, but again, the information was withheld so that the defenders would be unprepared. All, says Stinnett, was directed from the White House itself with Roosevelt’s knowledge and at his behest.

Philip Zelikow, writing in Foreign Affairs, objected to Stinnett’s claim that the Japanese naval code was being read at the time (the JN-25 code was changed shortly before the attack and was not decrypted again until May 1942), an objection also raised by Crane. A review posted on the U.S. Naval Cryptologic Veterans Association website addresses the intelligence issues in greater detail and disputes claims that the fleet was detected through direction finding; the author also criticizes Stinnett’s use of testimony from Robert Ogg, originally identified as “Seaman Z” by John Toland in his 1986 book. Indeed, Ogg expressly denies saying what Toland quotes him as saying. In their annotations on the 1995 Pentagon study of the attack, Frederic Borch and Daniel Martinez, chief historian at the USS Arizona Memorial, also dispute these claims and call his claims “totally false”.

Stinnett’s claims of “intercepts” are contradicted by Japanese testimony, which unequivocally state there were none, and even transmitter keys were removed from radios of ships in the task force. (The claim of a need for “low-power radio” made by Stinnett ignores standard fleet practice under radio silence, use of flag or blinker.) Moreover, his “intercepts” do not amount to direction finding bearings, contrary to his claims, while his document allegedly showing the plot of these nonexistent bearings contains nothing of the kind.

“If there was this vast and humongous conspiracy”, its members had to number in the hundreds. Among them would have to be Lt. Kermit Tyler who, on the morning of 7 December, was contacted about a radar contact on an inbound flight, and told the operators to forget about it. One would also have to include the Navy duty officer, who was asleep when the destroyer USS Ward first tried to report a minisub contact,] thereby losing over three hours’ warning. It would also include the officer who ordered USAAC fighters be parked in close proximity to avoid sabotage. Also included would be the senior antiaircraft officers, who ordered ammunition to be locked up far from the guns.

Furthermore, Stinnett makes numerous and contradictory claims of the number of messages originated by the Kido Butai, attributing to it messages from shore stations, Yamamoto’s flagship (which was not accompanying the task force), deception measures, and traffic from before the task force even sailed. Moreover, he finds “not a single one” originating from the Kido Butai after it sortied 26 November.

David Kahn commented on the book, stating that it had “basic errors of fact” and “tendentious interpretations” and was “an extraordinarily sloppy book”. Examples include Stinett commenting on Japanese code wheels which did not exist, and misreading a date that said 15-5-41 as December 5, 1941. Stinnett also mistakenly believed that provoking Japan into an act of war against another nation would trigger the mutual assistance provision of the Axis Tripartite Pact.

Historian Gordon Prange, in an earlier work, noted that a war between the U.S. and Japan was contrary to Roosevelt’s desire to aid Britain in her fight against Germany, and Prime Minister Churchill’s desire to avoid “another war”. Prange, the foremost authority on the Pearl Harbor attack, characterizes the conspiracy theory as “an absurdity.” British historian John Keegan writes that Stinnett’s charges of conspiracy “defy logic”, and fail to show how Roosevelt could have succeeded in bringing US Army Chief George Marshall and US Navy Chief Harold Stark into the conspiracy. Another British historian, Ronald Lewin, calls Stinnett’s theory “moonshine.” Military intelligence historian Roberta Wohlstetter wrote that Stinnett conflated FDR’s desire for an incident which might serve as a catalyst for war against Germany, with FDR’s supposed foreknowledge of such an incident provoking war with Japan. Presidential historian Joseph E. Persico found that FDR drafted an appeal to peace to the Emperor of Japan the night before the Pearl Harbor attack, which historian Hervie Haughler said could not be the action of someone who wished for war with Japan.

The Minsk Agreement was essentially dead in the water since Putin never fully honored it from the start. You can’t send in Spetsnaz to influence / intimidate the Russian-speaking Ukrainians and claim the majority wanted to split from Ukraine, when that wasn’t exactly the case. Free and fair elections didn’t exactly occur.

I do believe every people have the right to self-determination, and I believe secession is the right of any people. But, just as Lincoln was determined to hold the States together by force, so too were Ukraine’s leaders, plus, they saw Putin’s interference in the area as a blatant attempt to annex part of Ukraine for Russia once again.

Many in the disputed areas didn’t want to be under Russian control again, given what they remember from the times in the USSR.

As far as agreements go, don’t speak to me of agreements, when Putin’s first move was to violate the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which Russia agreed to help France and the U.S. ensure Ukraine’s border security and in exchange Ukraine would relinquish its nuclear weapons. Putin invaded and occupied Crimea in 2014, out of anger at having his economic overtures rebuffed and his puppet ousted.

Some of Y’All have a very selective memory of the events.

Here is my take on the Ukraine situation written around the time it was all unfolding, if You’re interested enough to want to sift through it:

Maidan Hasn’t Won Yet

By Justice O. Smith
Sent: 2/28/2014 12:20 PM

The Ukrainian Parliament heard the Bell of Freedom ringing on February 22, 2014, and they ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, their corrupt leader. Since the collapse of the former U.S.S.R, many corrupt men and women have sought to govern Ukraine, in order to empty her treasury; historically, Ukraine has been deliberately exploited geopolitically by many nations over the past five centuries, such as Poland, Germany and Russia, and its language and culture suppressed by all, except for the Hapsburg Monarchy. And, now that Ukraine’s Parliament has issued an arrest warrant for Yanukovych and answered their people’s call for freedom, the vast majority want Ukraine’s course to be uncorrupted and set by the Ukrainian people, without outside interference from the U.S., the European Union and Russia.

President Yanukovych’s arbitrary decision to nullify an economic agreement with the European Union (EU), with few strings attached, and accept a $15 billion aid package from Russian President Vladimir Putin was viewed with horror and revulsion. The specter of life under Russian influence and control surfaced, and this is a life that the majority of Ukrainians will never willingly accept again – something they will fight to the death before being forced once more down the road to serfdom.

From the first day of acquiring most of Ukraine from Poland, under the Treaty of Andrusovo (1667), Russian Tsars sought to destroy any sense of national identity in the Ukrainian people. In 1876 Alexander II actually banned books from being published in Ukrainian and speaking Ukrainian in theater plays.

Taras Shevchenko, Ukraine’s first major poet (1814-1861), synthesized urban and rural linguistic usages with Church Slavonic to articulate a full range of ideas and feelings. Shevchenko railed against the autocratic Russian state in the name of “this land of ours which is not ours”. His nationalist verses reassured literate Ukrainians that they were at least a potential nation.

The Ukrainian people have never forgotten the millions of peasants who were murdered during the 1919 de-Cossackization of the Don region, they have never forgotten the 10 million Ukrainians who were starved to death by Stalin’s regime between 1932 and 1934, and they remember the forced exiles to Siberia during 1944-45. Their resentment and hostility towards Russia and communism/authoritarianism has remained into the present, and, in large part, this explains the anger Ukrainians felt towards the corrupt Viktor Yanukovych and his cozy arrangement with the former director of the KGB, Vladimir Putin.

Ulrich Speck of Carnegie Europe (New York Times) recently pointed at Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and Romania as EU success stories, and declared that “the protest movement… centered in Kiev’s Independence Square, has won,” although many others declare that Ukraine will not find real freedom within a European Union economic stricture and the immigration burdens that accompany the EU’s open borders policy; however, the initial EU deal was simply an offer of economic aid, a loose association and a free trade agreement, and EU membership was not offered. But no matter how one views the EU, the Ukrainian people are obviously in desperate need of assistance, and perhaps an effective joint economic aid plan will soon be managed by the U.S., the EU and the International Monetary Fund, with mutually beneficial terms included.

Of course, the big pink Russian Bear’s reaction remains to be seen, as Russian military “maneuvers” are now occurring along Crimea’s border. Right or wrong, Ukraine, “Little Russia”, has been seen as critical to Russia’s national security, because it was the breadbasket of the old Soviet Union and it was also used as an invasion route by numerous past enemies, including Napoleon and the Nazis. Russian technological advances in missile delivery and other armaments negates this as a serious concern. But, no one should be overly hopeful that Putin will follow Boris Yeltsin’s declaration that “The Russian state…will never be an empire…It will be an equal among equals.”

At Putin’s urging, Yanukovych intensified the use of force against the Maidan protesters, resulting in 82 people dead. Since then, Putin has questioned the legitimacy of the recent actions by the Ukrainian Parliament. And, with a heavy imprint in the Crimea (eastern Ukraine) from decades of “russification” programs, Putin’s pure naked desire, thinly veiled in a proposed Eurasian Union, to reconstruct the old Soviet Union may result in an Ossetia-style Russian intervention, despite Obama’s warnings and Putin’s assurances to the contrary; or, at the very least, this means several more months of civil strife and turmoil, since pro-Russian protesters were flying Red Communist flags in Donetsk on February 23rd, and armed men occupied all the government buildings in Simferopol (Crimea) on February 27, 2014 (Reuters).

On Sunday, February 23, Yanukovych’s Party of Regions abandoned him and accused him of facilitating the deaths of the protesters and betraying his country. This same day, Yanukovych appointee and military chief of staff, Yuriy Ilvin said, “As an officer I see no other way than to serve the Ukrainian people honestly and assure that I have not and won’t give criminal orders.”

To the heart of the matter, Serhiy Sobalev, a member of Parliament from the Balkivshchyna Party, stated: “We will come out of Maidan either free or as slaves. But we don’t want to be slaves.”

After Leonid Slutsky, chairman of the Russian parliamentary committee that deals with former satellite states, exclaimed, “They are trying in every possible way to tear Ukraine away from Russia” (Interfax), the world should have asked, “So?” – Russia’s claim to the Ukraine has always been illegitimate, and the Ukrainians have never wanted to be integrated into Muscovy. Doesn’t Ukraine have a natural right to self-determination and their own independent state? History says “Yes.”

Interim Ukrainian President Oleksandr Turchynov, Petro Poroshenko – opposition member of Ukraine’s Parliament, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama all agree that Ukraine’s territorial integrity must be preserved. Each has a different understanding of this term “territorial integrity.” Just as in the 1950s, today some Ukrainians in the Orthodox east and south still long for the Russian state, while in the west, with its Hapsburg and Polish traditions and its strong Uniate Church, Ukrainian nationhood is understood as inherently anti-Russian.

Recently, Yulia Tymoshenko, former Ukrainian Prime Minister, announced she would run for the presidency, even though much of her former appeal has been tarnished by being seen as part of a corrupt power structure. In many respects, Tymoshenko was much closer to Putin than Yanukovych could ever have hoped to be. But she did herself and her country proud, when she tearfully told a crowd on February 22, “After what you did, Ukraine is yours.”

In the years leading up to 1917, Ukraine was torn through national and social upheaval and embroiled in chaotic violence, much like Ukraine after the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Trans-Dniester Republic in 1991, much like present day Ukraine. Professional people, rural cooperatives and officers from the imperial army convened a Ukrainian Military Congress, which proclaimed the Ukrainian People’s Republic in November 1917, and it was immediately challenged by a Soviet government in Kharkov and supported by many of the workers and peasants in eastern Ukraine. But, the memory of their national independence from 1917 to 1921, no matter how brief, precarious and embattled, generates a powerful longing for fulfillment in the modern day Ukraine.

I would like to leave you with two of the most poignant thoughts I received from two young activists, as I communicated with them on the 23rd and 24th of February:

4:45 pm Sunday 23rd/ Galyna Kolodkevych, Professor of Ukrainian literature in Kiev, asked, “What is the way forward now?” She continued, “Maidan has become (the) opposition now and (the) new authority has to listen to the people of Maidan, but not to the West or Russia. Our politicians receive the power but then forget us…We demand full lustration of official power, without previous communists, party of regions, (and) (Yulia) Tymoshenko. So, Maidan hasn’t won yet. People will stand until the murderers are punished.”

4:37 am Monday 24th/ Yevgeniya Goncharuk cried out, “There is a pain in my heart. Ukraine (is) washed with tears. Many different and difficult thoughts are in my head. Fear to forget. Fear to allow politicians to forget what happened. There is no feeling something great was achieved. I do not see a clear plan for how to remove the old politicians, judges and policemen. But I know that people have to learn by new, normal rules – moral law. The main thing is to remember all the mistakes and lies of every person, who worked in the government. The criminals have to sit in jail. How long will they avoid punishment? …There is hope….Ukrainians are great, they are beautiful people. They surprised themselves. Suddenly they show that they are brave, desperate and they deserve a better life.”

No, Maidan hasn’t won yet, but the Ukrainian people have always been brave, and they do deserve a better life. They have the right to choose and to create for themselves a more perfect union, with one’s liberties and human dignity guaranteed, where equality under a moral law reigns and everyone lives and dies free; today I, all of us, and the world share the chains of the Ukrainian people, since the destruction of just a single person’s freedom creates a ripple effect throughout civil society: So, without undue influence, the Free World must enable, through every available means, the destiny of the Ukrainian people to manifest itself through the people’s own free will, uncorrupted by immoral men.

Yes … but you and others on this forum are acting like I supported funding these wars and making me the issue, simply because I noted the U.S. is bound by treaty to a certain amount of support for Israel — after which, I immediately stated WE SHOULD NOT BE FUNDING ANY FOREIGN NATION OR WAR WHEN OUR OWN BORDERS ARE SITTING WIDE OPEN.

You and others love to go off topic and divert and deflect from what was actually said and discussed.

It doesn’t matter what happened in 2014, between Ukraine and Russia. WHAT MATTERS IS GETTING THIS BIDEN REGIME TO SEAL & SECURE THE GODDAMNED BORDERS & STOP LETTING MILLIONS OF GODDAMNED ANTI-AMERICAN PIECES OF SHIT INTO THE COUNTRY!!!