Australian Message to US Intel before Pearl Harbor

[Wowzery]

So, reading some comments in a video ran across a guy making the claim that an Australian RAN cryptologist Lt Comd Veve sent a message 6-7 days in advance to Pearl Harbor warning the US that they would be at war with Japan.  Originally the poster says by the weeks end, then within 9 days.  Poster also says that the US ignored this very important message which could have changed everything.

Has anyone heard of this message?  So far couldn't find anything in a Google search.  I've heard of warnings from the Soviets and Britain this is the first time I've heard of someone from Australia.

[_KlRlTO_]

15 minutes ago, Wowzery said:

So, reading some comments in a video ran across a guy making the claim that an Australian RAN cryptologist Lt Comd Veve sent a message 6-7 days in advance to Pearl Harbor warning the US that they would be at war with Japan.  Originally the poster says by the weeks end, then within 9 days.  Poster also says that the US ignored this very important message which could have changed everything.

Has anyone heard of this message?  So far couldn't find anything in a Google search.  I've heard of warnings from the Soviets and Britain this is the first time I've heard of someone from Australia.

The US knew from our own codebreakers that we were going to be at war with Japan. What we did not know was that the attack was coming at Pearl Harbor. We thought it was coming at Manilla or Guam.

[Royeaux]

46 minutes ago, Wowzery said:

So, reading some comments in a video ran across a guy making the claim that an Australian RAN cryptologist Lt Comd Veve sent a message 6-7 days in advance to Pearl Harbor warning the US that they would be at war with Japan.  Originally the poster says by the weeks end, then within 9 days.  Poster also says that the US ignored this very important message which could have changed everything.

Has anyone heard of this message?  So far couldn't find anything in a Google search.  I've heard of warnings from the Soviets and Britain this is the first time I've heard of someone from Australia.

I find this unlikely because the US was already anticipating some form of Japanese attack.  The U.S. Army Signals Intelligence Service was already reading Japanese diplomatic messages encrypted by "Purple" since 1940.

[Charon2018]

Amelia Earhart has been found alive and living with Elvis!

[RipNuN2]

The US expected sabotage at Pearl which is why they parked all the planes close together for ease of guarding. This made the air attack more effective.

[Wowzery]

I'm aware that the US was already gearing up and preparing for war.  I just had never heard of this message before.

A person replying to him even makes this comment which the poster ignores and says the message could have changed how the US prepares.  But never provided any links or specifics of  the message.  So I thought I ask here with people who love naval history.

Personally with how this guy replied I seriously doubt his claim about this message.  He was very much anti-US and just started replying to any questions with insults.

 

[clammboy]

I heard it was Mick Dundee .

[BrushWolf]

I knew the Dutch has sent warnings to us but had never heard of Australian warnings.

[AJTP89]

Never heard of it. Possible though. As others said, the US knew things were coming to a head with Japan. They probably were expecting a breakout in hostilities soon. Also they may had inklings of Japanese movements in the east indies. And it's very possible that such intelligence was passed to them by their allies. But specifically Pearl Harbor and when? Almost certainly not. The IJN did a very good job of keeping that secret and while the US expected attacks a full CV strike on Pearl wasn't something they dreamed could happen. Partly because such an attack was had never been done on that scale before (British on Taranto was smaller scale and closer distance, though the IJN did study it). And partly because the US simply didn't believe the Japanese were capable of that kind of thing. The US underestimating the Japanese was a very common theme early on. So doubtful the US received solid intel on the Pearl Harbor attack before hand, and even if they had it would have never been believed.

[monpetitloup]

The US was well aware of the attack. Why do you think the flattops were conveniently « away on training » and thus safely away from the target zone? FDR allowed it to happen because it was the only way to unify public opinion to support the war. And guess what support they did, ever heard a better speach than the day of infamy? Folks were lining up to enlist afterwards for the duration and not a shred of dissent.

[tm63au]

8 hours ago, Wowzery said:

So, reading some comments in a video ran across a guy making the claim that an Australian RAN cryptologist Lt Comd Veve sent a message 6-7 days in advance to Pearl Harbor warning the US that they would be at war with Japan.  Originally the poster says by the weeks end, then within 9 days.  Poster also says that the US ignored this very important message which could have changed everything.

Has anyone heard of this message?  So far couldn't find anything in a Google search.  I've heard of warnings from the Soviets and Britain this is the first time I've heard of someone from Australia.

What possibly might be the case is and as everyone knows Pearl Harbour was part of a three pronged attack.

 On 2 December, the Japanese military issued the order "Climb Mount Niitaka", which set in motion the war in the Pacific. The main invasion fleet for Operation "E", the invasion of Malaya and Thailand, sailed from Sanya, Hainan Island, China on 4 December. Further troops and ships joined the fleet from Cam Ranh Bay, Indochina.

At noon on 6 December, one of three RAAF No 1 Squadron Lockheed Hudsons on a reconnaissance flight over the South China Sea, located three Japanese ships steaming west, and about 15 minutes later, sighted the IJN Southern Expeditionary Fleet convoy, consisting of a battleship, five cruisers, seven destroyers and 22 transports. One of the two merchant seaplane tenders with the convoy, the Kamikawa Maru, launched a Mitsubishi F1M "Pete" floatplane to intercept the Hudson, which eluded it by taking cover in the clouds. A few minutes later, a second Hudson also sighted the convoy

Air Chief Marshal Sir Robert Brooke-Popham was advised of the sightings at 14:00. He was not authorised to take any action against the convoy, as Britain was not at war with Japan, the Japanese intentions were still unclear, and no aggressive action had yet been taken against British or Thai territory. He put his forces in Malaya on full alert and ordered continued surveillance of the convoy.

As from above its known that we Aussie's were first to spot the two Southeast Asia Forces of the three pronged attack it stands to reason Pearl Harbour would have been informed of this as they would have sent the pacific fleet to intercept the IJN.

But i cant find anything else on the subject.

[Royeaux]

13 hours ago, monpetitloup said:

Why do you think the flattops were conveniently « away on training »

That would be idiotic unless the Battleships were also conveniently away on training because the destruction of Battleship Row knocked out Pearl Harbor itself as a repair facility as it would spend the next few years overwhelmed with repair duties.  Not to mention the great expense repair all the damage.  Losing Pearl Harbor was a massive disadvantage right out of the gate, battleships like South Dakota had to sail all the way to New York for repairs or USS Enterprise having to repaired in Washington.  All the ships sunk at Pearl Harbor also created traffic jams in the harbor, if any of the Battleships had sunk at the harbor entrance it would have been a total catastrophe.

13 hours ago, monpetitloup said:

FDR allowed it to happen because it was the only way to unify public opinion

It would be completely pants on head stupid to sacrifice 9 capital ships for the sake of public opinion.  This conspiracy theory only works if you think FDR was completely insane and the US Admiralty completely willing to embarrass itself.  This would be as dumb as insisting the Russians intentionally embarrassed themselves in the Winter War with Finland to encourage the Germans to betray them.

[Sabot_100]

A lot of this kind of stuff (if true) always sounds prophetic in hindsight. In the moment it is just some of the chaff that must be sorted out. The US probably had a lot more "evidence" that the attack was going to fall in Manila. Especially since that followed plan Orange.

In spite of Taranto, thinking the IJN would put all their CVs at risk in such an endeavor would be ludacris. No way they could sail all that way without being detected. 

[monpetitloup]

8 hours ago, Sventex said:

That would be idiotic unless the Battleships were also conveniently away on training because the destruction of Battleship Row knocked out Pearl Harbor itself as a repair facility as it would spend the next few years overwhelmed with repair duties.  Not to mention the great expense repair all the damage.  Losing Pearl Harbor was a massive disadvantage right out of the gate, battleships like South Dakota had to sail all the way to New York for repairs or USS Enterprise having to repaired in Washington.  All the ships sunk at Pearl Harbor also created traffic jams in the harbor, if any of the Battleships had sunk at the harbor entrance it would have been a total catastrophe.

It would be completely pants on head stupid to sacrifice 9 capital ships for the sake of public opinion.  This conspiracy theory only works if you think FDR was completely insane and the US Admiralty completely willing to embarrass itself.  This would be as dumb as insisting the Russians intentionally embarrassed themselves in the Winter War with Finland to encourage the Germans to betray them.

Clearly you didnt learn your lesson. Pearl Harbor, coral sea, and midway clearly show that battleships were already irrelevant at this time, this was already known (see Billy Mitchell, project b in 1923!) and cv/air power was the decisive factor in winning both wars (see battle of the atlantic, sinking of the bismark etc). Battleships were nothing but floating gun support for the marines by the outbreak of wwii and did not even fire shots in anger at the most decisive battles (which were fought well beyond battleship range with both fleets not even within sight of each other), their inability to protect themselves at pearl speaks to their value as aa support.

Most ships sunk at pearl were returned to action by mid 1942 - 6 months, pearl was at best a minor setback which served most importantly to fully militirize the us economy. This is the greatest achievement of pearl because the us public was thereafter willing to embark in both wars, put their lives on hold at best or sacrifice them at worst in order to win both wars. Yamamoto’s sleeping giant and Ike’s military industrial complew were both born out of pearl harbor, it is unlikely both would have happened to the extent they did and certainly not with the rapidity they did were pearl not allowed to occur.

the flattops being safely away is the proof pearl harbor was a calculated sacrifice to ensure the american public supported the war. Remember pearl, avenge dec 7 etc were used as propaganda throughout and quite frankly are still effective even today, merely visiting the Arizona is still enough to get ons emotions going 80 years later. And clearly this strategy was conceived by people who understood naval strategy and the american public better than you.

[Royeaux]

2 hours ago, monpetitloup said:

Clearly you didnt learn your lesson. Pearl Harbor, coral sea, and midway clearly show that battleships were already irrelevant at this time, this was already known (see Billy Mitchell, project b in 1923!) and cv/air power was the decisive factor in winning both wars (see battle of the atlantic, sinking of the bismark etc). Battleships were nothing but floating gun support for the marines by the outbreak of wwii and did not even fire shots in anger at the most decisive battles (which were fought well beyond battleship range with both fleets not even within sight of each other), their inability to protect themselves at pearl speaks to their value as aa support.

Even by December 7th, the United States Navy was comprised of 98.75% surface and submarine ships armed primarily with guns and torpedoes.  Obviously these ships are going to be shooting each other in the war, it's wasn't going to be all air battles.  The 16" guns you have, are better than the 16" the enemy does not have.

Type	7 December 1941	14 May 1945	Note
Battleships	17	23	(all types)
Fleet Carrier	7	28
Escort Carrier	1	71
Cruiser	37	72	(all types)
Destroyer	171	377	(all types)
Frigate	0	361
Submarine	112	232
Amphibious Warfare	0	2,547	(including small craft)
Total active	790	6,768

2 hours ago, monpetitloup said:

Most ships sunk at pearl were returned to action by mid 1942 - 6 months, pearl was at best a minor setback which served most importantly to fully militirize the us economy. This is the greatest achievement of pearl because the us public was thereafter willing to embark in both wars, put their lives on hold at best or sacrifice them at worst in order to win both wars. Yamamoto’s sleeping giant and Ike’s military industrial complew were both born out of pearl harbor, it is unlikely both would have happened to the extent they did and certainly not with the rapidity they did were pearl not allowed to occur.

Pearl Harbor was very important, even if you wanted to utilized air power.  By overwhelming all it's drydocks and sustaining billions of dollars in damage, the result was the loss of the most important base in the Pacific in supporting aggressive actions.  Think for a second, the US public would still have been outraged if Pearl Harbor was attacked, even if the Battleships were miraculously not present.

2 hours ago, monpetitloup said:

the flattops being safely away is the proof pearl harbor was a calculated sacrifice to ensure the american public supported the war. Remember pearl, avenge dec 7 etc were used as propaganda throughout and quite frankly are still effective even today, merely visiting the Arizona is still enough to get ons emotions going 80 years later.

What do you mean "safely away"?  USS Lexington was sailing for Midway and was virtually unprotected.  And because she was delivering aircraft, she was not in a position to do battle.  If the Japanese had spotted her, it wouldn't have been a contest.  And many of USS Enterprise's planes were shot down over Pearl Harbor by the US anti-air.  It doesn't take a genius to see the tactical flaw in shooting down your own carrier planes right out of the gate.

2 hours ago, monpetitloup said:

 And clearly this strategy was conceived by people who understood naval strategy and the american public better than you.

Public opinion was already mobilized against Japan, crippling the USN ability to wage in the Pacific is not a great strategy.  By the end of 1942, for a time the US had no operational Fleet Carriers left in the Pacific and head to beg the Royal Navy to loan them HMS Victorious.  The loss of so much of the Pacific Fleet was a complete disaster, Battleships South Dakota and North Carolina had to fight the Japanese Battleship Kirishima with no carrier support or with the overwhelming firepower of the Pearl Harbor Battleships.  And of course the Battleships were going to start shooting when there weren't any carriers left on the gameboard.  As the Japanese and Americans learned, Carriers could not be relied on, they were sunk so easily in war.  The climax of the last major naval battle the USN fought involved Japanese Battleships representing an extreme threat to the USN landing convoys and American Battleships blowing a Japanese Battleship to smithereens.  Navies will use the weapons they have on hand to fight, to say Battleships were irrelevant, even when there were barely any allied Fleet Carriers left afloat in the Pacific is damned foolish.  You need to fight with something.

[monpetitloup]

8 hours ago, Sventex said:

Even by December 7th, the United States Navy was comprised of 98.75% surface and submarine ships armed primarily with guns and torpedoes.  Obviously these ships are going to be shooting each other in the war, it's wasn't going to be all air battles.  The 16" guns you have, are better than the 16" the enemy does not have.

Type	7 December 1941	14 May 1945	Note
Battleships	17	23	(all types)
Fleet Carrier	7	28
Escort Carrier	1	71
Cruiser	37	72	(all types)
Destroyer	171	377	(all types)
Frigate	0	361
Submarine	112	232
Amphibious Warfare	0	2,547	(including small craft)
Total active	790	6,768

Pearl Harbor was very important, even if you wanted to utilized air power.  By overwhelming all it's drydocks and sustaining billions of dollars in damage, the result was the loss of the most important base in the Pacific in supporting aggressive actions.  Think for a second, the US public would still have been outraged if Pearl Harbor was attacked, even if the Battleships were miraculously not present.

What do you mean "safely away"?  USS Lexington was sailing for Midway and was virtually unprotected.  And because she was delivering aircraft, she was not in a position to do battle.  If the Japanese had spotted her, it wouldn't have been a contest.  And many of USS Enterprise's planes were shot down over Pearl Harbor by the US anti-air.  It doesn't take a genius to see the tactical flaw in shooting down your own carrier planes right out of the gate.

Public opinion was already mobilized against Japan, crippling the USN ability to wage in the Pacific is not a great strategy.  By the end of 1942, for a time the US had no operational Fleet Carriers left in the Pacific and head to beg the Royal Navy to loan them HMS Victorious.  The loss of so much of the Pacific Fleet was a complete disaster, Battleships South Dakota and North Carolina had to fight the Japanese Battleship Kirishima with no carrier support or with the overwhelming firepower of the Pearl Harbor Battleships.  And of course the Battleships were going to start shooting when there weren't any carriers left on the gameboard.  As the Japanese and Americans learned, Carriers could not be relied on, they were sunk so easily in war.  The climax of the last major naval battle the USN fought involved Japanese Battleships representing an extreme threat to the USN landing convoys and American Battleships blowing a Japanese Battleship to smithereens.  Navies will use the weapons they have on hand to fight, to say Battleships were irrelevant, even when there were barely any allied Fleet Carriers left afloat in the Pacific is damned foolish.  You need to fight with something.

The battleships were pointless and the outcome od the war shows it. A multi million dollar (at the time) ship manned by thousands of sailors could and would be sunk by a single multi thousand dollar (at the time) plane manned by one (or 2 for naval planes) airman is by far the most efficient course of action. And like i said the majority of the pearl harbor ships sunk were back fighting 6 months later not to mention the hundreds of ships produced y the us, the attack was irrelevant in terms of effect. Indeed nagumo’s monumental failure to destroy the fuel stores and finish the attack with the third wave are the primary reason the attack was not successful. 

Let us not forget the us broke japanese code (on paper in time for midway, but who really knows) so the flattops being away and as you say carrying planes that were guaranteed to survive pearl harbor, is just too convenient. The big slow defenseless battleships were left to be the sacrificial lambs while the main offensive power was kept aside.

doing naval battle gun to gun jutland style was already obsolete by the time of war, this type of battle neither being decisive nor cost effective. However the doolitle raid 4 months after pearl shows how the vastness of the pacific allowed for carrier warfare to dominate but most importantly terrified the japanese to the point where they completely ceased all offensive actions against the us rather seeking to enforce a defensive perimeter to prevent another such attack. The war shows the us did not need to fight because taking an island in the pacific is irrelevant strategically because you can go around it and take another one thus cutting off the enemy: island hopping. Time was clearly on the side of the us and all surface actions were merely sideshows for the carrier battles which ultimately led to japan’s defeat. Once they had no carriers the us could simply sail up to an island, bombard it (again the last functional role of the battleship, but planes proved eventually better in close support) land the marines, plant the flag, repair the airstrip and repeat all the way to okinawa.

finally i think you don’t understand the industrial power of the us at the time and its ability to produce ships planes tanks munitions and men to man all of them in a capacity the japanese could never dream of. The us fought a war of attrition on both fronts and none of the axis powers could dream of keeping up. The us produced 124 carriers to japan’s 18 and 23 battleships to japan’s 2 during the war. Japan could have invaded and taken over hawaii, they still could not have won the war. The war was over once japan lost its carriers at coral sea and midway because they simply could not rebuild them, and yet again surface warships were already obsolete. The last desperate attempt to fight yamato proves that no ship is a match for airpower. This was true from billy mitchells tests and continues to be true today.

[Royeaux]

8 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

A multi million dollar (at the time) ship manned by thousands of sailors could and would be sunk by a single multi thousand dollar (at the time) plane manned by one (or 2 for naval planes) airman is by far the most efficient course of action.

There's no reason to let thousands of experienced sailors die and multi million dollar ship be sunk in the most important strategic harbor.

12 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

And like i said the majority of the pearl harbor ships sunk were back fighting 6 months

And some ships could not be retrieved from the harbor floor and remain obstructions in one of the most important strategic harbors of WWII.  If a Battleship had sunk at the harbor entrance and could not be refloated, the entire port would have been isolated and the ships within would have been trapped, which would have been a catastrophe.

17 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

Indeed nagumo’s monumental failure to destroy the fuel stores and finish the attack with the third wave are the primary reason the attack was not successful. 

It would have been physically impossible for Nagumo to destroy the all fuel stores unless he stayed at Pearl Harbor and sacrificed all his planes and his carriers attacking them.  Even if the tank is punctured, the oil isn't going anywhere, it can be simply hosed up and put in a new tank.

15 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

Let us not forget the us broke japanese code (on paper in time for midway, but who really knows) so the flattops being away and as you say carrying planes that were guaranteed to survive pearl harbor, is just too convenient.

By that logic, the Battleships still being in the harbor and AA guns unarmed is evidence that this was not convenient.  

16 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

The big slow defenseless battleships were left to be the sacrificial lambs while the main offensive power was kept aside.

The Battleships were defenseless because they were on peacetime conditions and the ammunition locked away.  Once the US was on a war footing, it did not lose a single Battleship in the war.

19 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

doing naval battle gun to gun jutland style was already obsolete by the time of war, this type of battle neither being decisive nor cost effective.

Except the last major naval battle of the war involved a Jutland style engagement with Battleships crossing the T and destroying other battleships.  Leyte Gulf was very decisive.  Perhaps not cost effective, but you fight with the navy you got, not the navy you will have in 10 years.

20 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

However the doolitle raid 4 months after pearl shows how the vastness of the pacific allowed for carrier warfare to dominate

The Doolittle Raid dominated nothing.  Nobody launched medium bombers from Carriers after that, the Doolittle Raid was a strategic dead end.

21 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

Once they had no carriers the us could simply sail up to an island, bombard it (again the last functional role of the battleship, but planes proved eventually better in close support) land the marines, plant the flag, repair the airstrip and repeat all the way to okinawa.

When the Japanese still had Battleships, it resulted in Battleships trying to thwart a naval invasion in the Philippines, resulting in a Jutland style battle.

22 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

finally i think you don’t understand the industrial power of the us at the time and its ability to produce ships planes tanks munitions and men to man all of them in a capacity the japanese could never dream of.

You fight with the navy you got, not the navy you will have in 10 years.

23 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

The us produced 124 carriers to japan’s 18 and 23 battleships

That is factually incorrect, Japan did not have 23 Battleships or 18 Battleships.

23 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

The war was over once japan lost its carriers at coral sea and midway because they simply could not rebuild them, and yet again surface warships were already obsolete.

That is factually incorrect, we still build Destroyers today.  Carriers are not the only warships that exist in the modern day.

ob·so·lete

adjective

1. 1.

   no longer produced or used; out of date.

   "the disposal of old and obsolete machinery"

    

 

 

[Lord_Slayer]

On 3/2/2021 at 8:32 PM, Wowzery said:

So, reading some comments in a video ran across a guy making the claim that an Australian RAN cryptologist Lt Comd Veve sent a message 6-7 days in advance to Pearl Harbor warning the US that they would be at war with Japan.  Originally the poster says by the weeks end, then within 9 days.  Poster also says that the US ignored this very important message which could have changed everything.

Has anyone heard of this message?  So far couldn't find anything in a Google search.  I've heard of warnings from the Soviets and Britain this is the first time I've heard of someone from Australia.

In material I have read (and I have read quite a bit), I have never come across anything in regards to the Australians warning of anything.

On 3/2/2021 at 8:50 PM, Shannon_Lindsey said:

The US knew from our own codebreakers that we were going to be at war with Japan. What we did not know was that the attack was coming at Pearl Harbor. We thought it was coming at Manilla or Guam.

^
Everything I have read has mentioned this. We had broken Purple, the Japanese diplomatic code. Thus we knew of Japan's final message, essentially declaring war, before the Japanese embassy had even deciphered it. Hence the warning that went out, though too late for Pearl.

Because the Fleet sailed with radios silenced, no one knew where the Japanese were, other then home waters.

And as said, it was always expected the attack to come in the Philippines or Guam, and the US Fleet would deploy to engage from Pearl.
 

On 3/3/2021 at 5:26 AM, monpetitloup said:

The US was well aware of the attack. Why do you think the flattops were conveniently « away on training » and thus safely away from the target zone? FDR allowed it to happen because it was the only way to unify public opinion to support the war. And guess what support they did, ever heard a better speach than the day of infamy? Folks were lining up to enlist afterwards for the duration and not a shred of dissent.

no.

As someone said, Lexington was out delivering aircraft to other bases. Enterprise was returning to port. And Saratoga was on the West Coast.

As for the speech, yes, it was a good one. FDR was a fantastic speaker and had done numerous speeches throughout his Presidency. Putting one together within 24 hours is not beyond of the realm of reason for FDR to do. As for Public support for war: we had just been attacked by surprise by the Japanese. Of course people would have been angered. Look what happened after 9/11. Patriotism soared even before the dust at ground zero had settled.

[Lord_Slayer]

35 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

Let us not forget the us broke japanese code (on paper in time for midway, but who really knows) so the flattops being away and as you say carrying planes that were guaranteed to survive pearl harbor, is just too convenient. The big slow defenseless battleships were left to be the sacrificial lambs while the main offensive power was kept aside.

The US had broken the Japanese Diplomatic code, not the Military code.

The Japanese Military code was harder to break and even by Midway we were only able to read maybe half the messages they were sending. It was only through guesswork and a bit of deception on the US part that allowed the US to know the Japanese were going to attack Midway.

 

As for the BBs, ships in harbor are always going to be at their weakest. They are in various states of readiness, have various amounts of ammo and fuel on board, and even if under power cannot maneuver. When in port, the fleet defense, as well as that of the Island of Hawaii fell on the shoulders of the US Army and US Army Air Corps.

 

Quote

However the doolitle raid 4 months after pearl shows how the vastness of the pacific allowed for carrier warfare to dominate but most importantly terrified the japanese to the point where they completely ceased all offensive actions against the us rather seeking to enforce a defensive perimeter to prevent another such attack.

no.

The Doolittle Raid was literally a volunteer suicide mission. It's sole purpose was to show that the US was going to fight and to strike a blow against Japan. Doolittle himself, after he crashed in China, had expected to be court-martialed as he thought the raid was a failure. The planes did do damage, but in the grand scheme of things they actually did very little. Yes, it made the Japanese Military take notice as no one had ever attacked the home islands successfully before.

The Japanese followed this attack on the home land with the Battle of Coral Sea, the attack on the Aleutian islands, and the Battle of Midway.

It was only after the loss of the CVs at Midway did the Japanese offensive pause, not Doolittle.

 

 

[_KlRlTO_]

1 hour ago, Lord_Slayer said:

In material I have read (and I have read quite a bit), I have never come across anything in regards to the Australians warning of anything.

^
Everything I have read has mentioned this. We had broken Purple, the Japanese diplomatic code. Thus we knew of Japan's final message, essentially declaring war, before the Japanese embassy had even deciphered it. Hence the warning that went out, though too late for Pearl.

Because the Fleet sailed with radios silenced, no one knew where the Japanese were, other then home waters.

And as said, it was always expected the attack to come in the Philippines or Guam, and the US Fleet would deploy to engage from Pearl.
 

no.

As someone said, Lexington was out delivering aircraft to other bases. Enterprise was returning to port. And Saratoga was on the West Coast.

As for the speech, yes, it was a good one. FDR was a fantastic speaker and had done numerous speeches throughout his Presidency. Putting one together within 24 hours is not beyond of the realm of reason for FDR to do. As for Public support for war: we had just been attacked by surprise by the Japanese. Of course people would have been angered. Look what happened after 9/11. Patriotism soared even before the dust at ground zero had settled.

 

I will add that there is a theory that British intelligence had already discovered what the Japanese were planning to do, and Churchill sat on the information, knowing that a surprise attack would bring a swift end to US isolationism and finally get us off the sidelines. 

[Royeaux]

16 minutes ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

 

I will add that there is a theory that British intelligence had already discovered what the Japanese were planning to do, and Churchill sat on the information, knowing that a surprise attack would bring a swift end to US isolationism and finally get us off the sidelines. 

Pound: Prime Minister, I have to report to you that the Prince of Wales and the Repulse have both been sunk by the Japanese – we think by aircraft. Tom Phillips is drowned.
Churchill: Are you sure it's true?
Pound: There is no doubt at all.
Churchill hangs up* "In all the war, I never received a more direct shock... As I turned over and twisted in bed the full horror of the news sank in upon me. There were no British or American ships in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific except the American survivors of Pearl Harbor, who were hastening back to California. Across this vast expanse of waters, Japan was supreme, and we everywhere were weak and naked."

[Nevermore135]

1 hour ago, Lord_Slayer said:

As someone said, Lexington was out delivering aircraft to other bases. Enterprise was returning to port. And Saratoga was on the West Coast.

Enterprise was actually scheduled to return to Pearl Harbor the morning of the attack. By a lucky break (although it probably didn’t seem so at the time) she was caught in bad weather that delayed the refueling operations of her escorts. If she had been following her original itinerary, it is extremely likely she would have been lost in the attack, possibly while transiting the harbor channel, which would have been especially disastrous.

28 minutes ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

I will add that there is a theory that British intelligence had already discovered what the Japanese were planning to do, and Churchill sat on the information, knowing that a surprise attack would bring a swift end to US isolationism and finally get us off the sidelines.

Everything I have read indicates that British intelligence had similar information to what the US possessed, i.e. they had strong indications an attack was going to happen, but no specifics about when or where. Plus, it makes no sense for FDR or Churchill to withhold this information for political reasons. Despite still being officially neutral, the US and Britain (and FDR and Churchill in particular) had a good relationship at the time, and if it ever got out that Britain withheld the information or that FDR let it happen it would be disastrous for US-UK relations in the case of the former and political suicide in the case of the latter (to say nothing of the moral implications). This is completely ignoring the military consequences of the attack. It was only a matter of time before Japan dragged the US into the war, so it makes no sense for either of these parties to engage in such a conspiracy.

And in regards to the assertion that the battleships were offered up as “sacrificial lambs” while the CVs were preserved, it needs to be remembered that for many of the world’s navies (and the USN in particular) naval aviation was still largely viewed as supplemental to more traditional weapons platforms. The battleships were still viewed as the backbone of the fleet, and the main reason that US carriers carried so much of the fighting in the first months/year of the war and played such decisive roles was because they had to. US carrier aviation was dominant by late war, but it got off to a very rocky start and this would in no way have been a sure thing if not for the crucible that was the Pacific theater in 1942.

 

 

[monpetitloup]

3 hours ago, Sventex said:

There's no reason to let thousands of experienced sailors die and multi million dollar ship be sunk in the most important strategic harbor.

And some ships could not be retrieved from the harbor floor and remain obstructions in one of the most important strategic harbors of WWII.  If a Battleship had sunk at the harbor entrance and could not be refloated, the entire port would have been isolated and the ships within would have been trapped, which would have been a catastrophe.

It would have been physically impossible for Nagumo to destroy the all fuel stores unless he stayed at Pearl Harbor and sacrificed all his planes and his carriers attacking them.  Even if the tank is punctured, the oil isn't going anywhere, it can be simply hosed up and put in a new tank.

By that logic, the Battleships still being in the harbor and AA guns unarmed is evidence that this was not convenient.  

The Battleships were defenseless because they were on peacetime conditions and the ammunition locked away.  Once the US was on a war footing, it did not lose a single Battleship in the war.

Except the last major naval battle of the war involved a Jutland style engagement with Battleships crossing the T and destroying other battleships.  Leyte Gulf was very decisive.  Perhaps not cost effective, but you fight with the navy you got, not the navy you will have in 10 years.

The Doolittle Raid dominated nothing.  Nobody launched medium bombers from Carriers after that, the Doolittle Raid was a strategic dead end.

When the Japanese still had Battleships, it resulted in Battleships trying to thwart a naval invasion in the Philippines, resulting in a Jutland style battle.

You fight with the navy you got, not the navy you will have in 10 years.

That is factually incorrect, Japan did not have 23 Battleships or 18 Battleships.

That is factually incorrect, we still build Destroyers today.  Carriers are not the only warships that exist in the modern day.

ob·so·lete

adjective

1. 1.

   no longer produced or used; out of date.

   "the disposal of old and obsolete machinery"

    

 

 

You clearly don’t understand wwii or warfare in general. All the ships/sailors sunk/killed in pearl were replaceable, were replaced, and the us won the war easily with the resultant industrial  respecification and mass volunteering directly resulting from the sacrificed casualties at pearl.

logistics, costs of ship, lives etc only mattered to japan. They simply did not have the capacity to fight the war and lost pathetically as they dideventually having to resort to kamikaze tactics in a vain attempt to inflict some harm on the us forces. Harm which was irrelevant because as i said by that time industrial production was so far advanced that the us could have fought the rest of the world combined and still won. This was only possible because the american public fully supported the war due to the attack on pearl.

play risk and you might have a more realistic sense of the world economy at that time, because your reading on the matter clearly hasnt helped you. And reasoning the thing through the logic of wows is by far the worst way to look at it.

[monpetitloup]

3 hours ago, Lord_Slayer said:

In material I have read (and I have read quite a bit), I have never come across anything in regards to the Australians warning of anything.

^
Everything I have read has mentioned this. We had broken Purple, the Japanese diplomatic code. Thus we knew of Japan's final message, essentially declaring war, before the Japanese embassy had even deciphered it. Hence the warning that went out, though too late for Pearl.

Because the Fleet sailed with radios silenced, no one knew where the Japanese were, other then home waters.

And as said, it was always expected the attack to come in the Philippines or Guam, and the US Fleet would deploy to engage from Pearl.
 

no.

As someone said, Lexington was out delivering aircraft to other bases. Enterprise was returning to port. And Saratoga was on the West Coast.

As for the speech, yes, it was a good one. FDR was a fantastic speaker and had done numerous speeches throughout his Presidency. Putting one together within 24 hours is not beyond of the realm of reason for FDR to do. As for Public support for war: we had just been attacked by surprise by the Japanese. Of course people would have been angered. Look what happened after 9/11. Patriotism soared even before the dust at ground zero had settled.

Thats exactly what i’m saying and why the government allowed pearl to be attacked because that’s the only way to get the ignorant american public to support a war. See iraq ii for the suite.

compare both to vietnam for the contrary.

[Royeaux]

3 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

You clearly don’t understand wwii or warfare in general. All the ships/sailors sunk/killed in pearl were replaceable, were replaced, and the us won the war easily with the resultant industrial  respecification and mass volunteering directly resulting from the sacrificed casualties at pearl.

You have gotten many facts wrong about WWII.  What authority do you have over me if you can't even cite the basic information?

Just now, monpetitloup said:

Thats exactly what i’m saying and why the government allowed pearl to be attacked because that’s the only way to get the ignorant american public to support a war. See iraq ii for the suite.

The US public already supported a war before Pearl Harbor.

November 1941: ON THE VERGE OF WAR
Diplomatic relations between Japan and the United States were tense. American newspapers informed readers that war between the two countries seemed imminent.

QWhich of these two things do you think is the more important–that this country keep out of war, or that Germany be defeated?

Office of Public Opinion Research, Nov. 21-26, 1941 -  https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us-public-opinion-world-war-II-1939-1941

68% Help 28% Keep Out 5% No Opinion