Pearl Harbor - betrayal?

[Patman Post]

The Great Betrayal: was Pearl Harbor a set-up by the British?

Most historians of the period agree that 1941 saw Britain exhausted and on its knees. Most of Europe had capitulated or fallen, and badly mauled British and Empire troops and a handful of others were desperately trying to stave off the inevitable.

Then the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. What Churchill had been praying for happened: the United States of America was in the War!!!

But now we learn the Japanese had spies and sympathisers at the heart of Britain's war planning. And before the war, British personnel had actually been at the Pearl Harbor base.

Could it be that Britain actually facilitated the Japanese attack that altered the otherwise certain outcome of WWII?

Evidence can still be viewed online:

This landmark film by Paul Elston tells the incredible story of how it was the British who gave the Japanese the knowhow to take out Pearl Harbor and capture Singapore. For 19 years before the fall of Singapore to the Japanese, British officers were spying for Japan. Worse still, the Japanese had infiltrated the very heart of the British establishment - through a mole who was a peer of the realm known to Churchill himself.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01j73yv

[Tim the plumber]

The attack on Pearl Harbour has been spun from before the day it happened;

1 The Japs declaired war some hours before the attack. Would have been sooner but the American secretary of state kept the diplomats waiting in his outer office for ages.

2 The attack was the result of the Americans forcing the oil supplies to Japan to be cut off.

3 The Japanees fleet was tracked across the pacific by British intelegence, presumably American as well.

4 The Japanees codes were broken in the first couple of weeks of the war. (Yeah right, not before then?)

5 The US bases all had radar 2 weeks after the start of the war. It had been installed around England in 1938/39 and was not exactly a new thing that was not known about by december 1941. It was switched off on the day of the attack.

6 The US fleet at Pearl harbour was all the oldest battle ships in the US fleet. The carriers were out at sea to avoid what was about to hit.

The whole thing was a tactic to get America into the war. This is how America goes to war. Rember 9/11. Or USS Main?

[angelman]

The whole thing was a tactic to get America into the war. This is how America goes to war. Rember 9/11. Or USS Main?

Guess it's better than Jenkins' ear.

[internetcynic]

The attack on Pearl Harbour has been spun from before the day it happened;

1 The Japs declaired war some hours before the attack. Would have been sooner but the American secretary of state kept the diplomats waiting in his outer office for ages.

2 The attack was the result of the Americans forcing the oil supplies to Japan to be cut off.

3 The Japanees fleet was tracked across the pacific by British intelegence, presumably American as well.

4 The Japanees codes were broken in the first couple of weeks of the war. (Yeah right, not before then?)

5 The US bases all had radar 2 weeks after the start of the war. It had been installed around England in 1938/39 and was not exactly a new thing that was not known about by december 1941. It was switched off on the day of the attack.

6 The US fleet at Pearl harbour was all the oldest battle ships in the US fleet. The carriers were out at sea to avoid what was about to hit.

The whole thing was a tactic to get America into the war. This is how America goes to war. Rember 9/11. Or USS Main?

I agree completely.

We had cracked the japanese naval code JN25b, the one used for naval signals, two years previously, but the additive booklet was changed three days before, which was inb fact too late to cover ther etracks. The americans worked out it was pearl harbour at least 3 days beforehand

As you state, radar was deliberately turned of despite one operating actually spotting the forward elements of the first wave (despite the disinformation in wikipedia to the contrary).

And as you say, it was no coincidence the carriers were at sea. The americans had already realised, as had the japanese, that carrier born aircraft was the way forward in naval warfare. The days of lobbing two ton shells at each other from 15 miles away over the hoirizon was shown to be over after the stalemate of the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Allowing the japanese to sink all the old aged Battleships served two purposes, it gave the US a reason to enter WW2, in much the same way the sinking of the Lusitania did in WW1, and it allowed the US to scrap the aging elements of the pacific fleet and embark on building a new carrier fleet without accusations of aggressive militarism.


Trueman sacrificed Pearl Harbour for several reasons, all of which he saw as the greater good, in the same way the use of the atomic bomb was used. (Roosevelt figured 100,000 dead japanese by atomoc bombardment was better than 1,000,000 american dead trying to take the japanese homeland by invasion)

[Road_Hog]

The Great Betrayal: was Pearl Harbor a set-up by the British?

More anti-British rubbish from Pratman. Thankfully Tim has already posted the facts.

[Patman Post]

More anti-British rubbish from Pratman. Thankfully Tim has already posted the facts.

I suggest Tim's continuous blind acceptance of any anti-establishment conspiracy going is more anti-British than anything I've posted.

But then, as an aging biker, you're probably too blind from the shine from your constantly-polished helmet to see that...

[Patman Post]

I've heard such stories before and considered them totally spun to fit different points of view.

But watch "The Fall of Singapore: The Great Betrayal" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01j73yv . It gives evidence, not theories.

[longbord]

History is interesting... but we all... too often... fall into the trap of viewing events with the benefit of hindsight.

How deliberate it may or may not have been that some Brits supplied the Japanese with the intelligence and technology is an interesting question.

Not as deliberate... I suspect... as some would like.

We should not forget that the US had been planning for war against Great Britain since the 1920s... Their war plan (Plan Red) was updated as late as 1935 and not actually "shelved" until 1939. Were the Brits totally ignorant of these plans...???

That the Japanese attacked British and US interests in the Pacific area more or less simultaneously denies us certainty about what either Britain or the US might have done... had the other been attacked while they were left in peace.

Maybe I'm prejudiced... but I incline to the view that Britain would have gone to the aid of the US... and that the US would have been a little backward in coming forward had they not been attacked by the Japanese.

[Patman Post]

It is difficult to view historical events with which we are familiar without the benefit of hindsight. This is why looking at correspondence, reports, photographs and film connected with the events shows reasons for certain actions.

There is no doubt Sempill fed information to the Japanese before and during the war. Others supplied information on ships and aircraft and even trained the Japanese in their use. And Sempill admitted being paid for the information. But Churchill protected Sempill from prosecution. That could have been to stop MI5's sources being exposed. Or it could have been to protect Churchill's reputation at a particular low point in the War. Either way, Sempill was moved to the North and out of the way.

Churchill seems unaware of Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor as he expected the US to have come to the aid of Singapore when under Japanese attack. Unfortunately, Japanese aircraft carriers incorporating British design, carrying British trained flyers, had destroyed that possibility.

Watch the programme and see what you think: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01j73yv

[longbord]

There does not seem much doubt that Sempill was a treacherous, self serving little sod... and that Rutland was some kind of toe-rag also... however hard I try to acknowledge that... over a period of years... they could have moved from "approved collaboration"... to "indiscretions among friends"... to outright treason.

Traitors are not exclusive to Britain though... there are more than enough to go round in all countries.

Perhaps we should see them as early, far sighted "globalists"... but my own inclination... and my sense of right... is that they should have been dropped through a hole in the floor with rope round the neck.