[Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo (resending)

[Tomoyuki Kono]

Dan,

As you pointed out, the thread has run its course so I don't want to  
drag it unnecessarily. However, you have misrepresented my more than  
what I can bear in silence. So I think I deserve another say. If  
other Buddha-L participants are thoroughly fed up with this topic,  
they need only reach for the delete button just this time.

I never said that the two examples I described as the *only* and  
*whole* truths. In the case of Sttinnett's book, his argument was  
based on previously classified documents many of which were released  
only after the Freedom of Information Act came into force in 2000.  
These are primary sources, so whatever version of event you find  
convincing, they need to be dealt with. As for the story behind the  
delayed ultimatum, this too is based on a journalist's discovery of  
previously unpublished/unnoticed testimonies by those who were  
directly involved in the event at the embassy. But the latter was  
just an anecdote; I never indulged in speculating about its  
historical implications.



>> shown to be erroneous, as Robert Stinnett's well-researched book, Day
>> of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, has shown.
>>
>>
>
> That's probably the oldest "conspiracy" theory we have re: WW II  
> (anti-war
> activists were already proposing that in the early '40s).
>
As I said, the theory I refer to was proposed on the basis of the  
hitherto top-secret documents which became available as a result of  
their declassification in recent years. I know nothing about the old  
conspiracy theorists but they couldn't have possibly been making the  
same argument, even if their conclusion looks similar.


> There is nothing to this "FDR knew and wanted" theory, but I can  
> understand
> why you would find that sort of thing persuasive and even comforting.
>
I may only find it plausible on the basis of reliable historical  
evidence. If it's not borne out by the evidence or if the evidence  
points to the contrary, I will be more than willing to accept it  
because, unlike some ardent 'revisionist' historians in Japan, I  
don't have wounded national pride :)


> Bottom
> line: even if one would like to imagine that somehow magically  
> Japan didn't
> attack Pearl Harbor of its own volition but was somehow forced or  
> tricked
> into it by FDR, that doesn't explain what happened to Manchuria,  
> Korea,
> China, etc. etc.
>
[snip]
One may imagine that but not me. I don't indulge in that sort of  
polemic you seem to ascribe to me. I never denied or attempted to  
justify various acts of Japanese imperialism and atrocities that took  
place before and after Pearl Harbor.


> As for the comedy of errors -- too polite to present an ultimatum in a
> timely manner -- that whole story, from every angle, stretches  
> credulity
> beyond all bounds.
>
The point of that anecdote, which I admit I didn't make clear as it  
was a mere digression, was to show you how rigid an accepted version  
of history often becomes. You may find it utterly ridiculous, but  
have you read the article before you trashed its content? This too  
was on the basis of hitherto unnoticed/unpublished sources. Even in  
light of new evidence, some people don't want to know, let alone  
believe. But it's not my concern to convince you or anyone of the  
validity of this discovery, no matter. By the way, I certainly wasn't  
trying to say that the delay in handing the ultimatum was due to the  
poor enthusiastic American priest who talked too much at the funeral :)


> The error was missing part of the fleet (see below),
> not the timing of the delivery of the ultimatum.
>
I didn't say anything about the timing of the ultimatum. As far as I  
know, the naval fleet was going to attack Pearl Harbor anyway, and  
the wording of the ultimatum and its timing had been planned in Tokyo  
days before. So I'm not disputing that or admiral Yamamoto's  
thinking, which I have also read about.


> It was a surprise attack. If an ultimatum had been offered in a timely
> manner, there would have been time to mount at least some sort of  
> defense,
> and there would have been no advantage of surprise. But of course, FDR
> wanted the place bombed, right? So an ultimatum wouldn't have  
> mattered -- so
> why don't we spare Japan all embarrassment in this, and say that the
> ultimatum was delivered on time, and FDR just sat on it?
> (That was sarcastic again)
>
Well, it looks as though he did. The Americans had cracked the  
Japanese diplomatic code earlier that year so the timing of the  
forthcoming ultimatum was known to some. The warning was radioed,  
among others, to Lieutenant General Walter Short in Hawaii, but he  
received it, er, six hours after the first bombs fell on PH (source:  
document RG80, PHLO, MMRB, Archives II, whose photocopy is reproduced  
in Stinnett, p. 301).

What is more, Stinnett has shown ample evidence that (1) the Japanese  
naval fleet on the way to Pearl Harbor did not observe radio silence.  
This includes transmission by Admiral Nagano and Admiral Yamamoto;  
(2) their communication was intercepted by the Americans; and (3) the  
Americans had already cracked the military code as well, so they new  
what the Japanese were communicating to each other. He also shows  
from the declassified archival records that Admiral Kimmel and  
Lieutenant General Short in Hawaii did not have unrestricted access  
to the decoded and translated diplomatic and military intercepts, and  
that in some crucial cases leading up to the attack, they were  
bypassed. So undoubtedly it was a surprise attack for those in  
Hawaii, including commanders there. FDR, as well as some of the  
thirty-six individuals who had unrestricted access to this  
information would have known what the Japanese had been up to. This  
much is certainly not conspiracy theory; clearly demonstrated  
historical facts which only emerged very recently.


> The issue here is not about being pro or anti US or Japan, but about
> thinking clearly.
>
I cannot agree more. I don't think either of us have been.

I will refrain from posting further on this topic regardless of  
whether Dan chooses to reply or not.

Best wishes,
Tomo