The Miracle of the Declaration of Independence

One cannot view the 1972 movie “1776”, which centers on the ongoing sessions of the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in June and July, 1776, leading up to the passing of the Declaration of Independence, without realizing that this event was a miracle.

The music is eminently forgettable, save for a couple of songs, but the story itself is riveting. This movie, based on the Broadway play, depicted John Adams, whom history has largely forgotten, as the leading advocate for independence. For this reason he arguably deserves a memorial in Washington D.C.  But he was also “obnoxious and disliked”, as was sung about in the movie, and perhaps this is the reason there is no Adams memorial.   But there is no doubt of his advocacy, his leadership, which paved the way for independence.

To get there, many obstacles had to be faced and overcome, not the least of which was the pacifism of Pennsylvania’s John Dickinson.  Dickinson was strongly against splitting from England and in the end was out polled by the Pennsylvania delegates, voting 2-1 in favor of independence, including Benjamin Franklin. The crucial vote here was that of Judge James Wilson, who stood up to Dickinson’s bullying to vote “yea” on the independence resolution.  Since unanimity on the resolution was required, any one colony votiong against it would have spelled defeat, and the the Judge did not want to be remembered in history as the one vote defeating independence.  Dickinson left the room after the favorable polling on independence, but vowing to join the Continental Army to prove his patriotism.

A further major concern was the position of South Carolina’s Edward Rutledge, who took a  firm stand against the clause condemning slavery.   He demanded that it be removed and vowed to vote “nay” on the resolution otherwise.  Although John Adams originally argued against removing the clause, Benjamin Franklin’s sage advice convinced him to give in on this point to save the fight for independence, leaving the slavery question for another day.

The show is an effective lesson in history, providing a realistic look at the day-to-day operation of the Continental Congress as it continued to struggle with its own bickering, contentiousness, politics, and personality issues, as it faced the question of independence from England.  It is also a study in human bravery, considering that at the time Great Britain fielded the strongest military and naval forces on earth, and that all members faced likely execution as traitors if the ongoing revolutionary war was lost.  Notable was the courage of Ceasar Rodney of Delaware who road back to Philadelphia from Delaware, while dying from cancer, to vote “yea.”  A statue in downtown Wilmington attests to his courage and determination.  But, considering that never before in history had a colony torn itself away from its Mother Country to establish its independence, one can also see the working of a greater, overriding  force in the mix which would not allow failure.  Perhaps the result was preordained.

Arnold G.Regardie

 

Leave a comment

Filed under clear writing

Capitalism – The Key To Controlling Illegal Immigration

There may not be too many basic truisms in life but here’s one: capitalism works, socialism doesn’t. Write it down.  It’s the answer to illegal immigration.

The proof of the pudding lies in— historical fact. Remember John Adams’ argument to the jury in the famous 1770 Boston Massacre case, “Facts are things,” i.e., not to be forgotten. Same here.  Socialist-minded Dems shy away from comparisons to capitalism, a comparison which is anathema to them.  Because the greatest example of capitalism working is right here, under their noses, the good ol’ USA.  Socialism destroys initiative, the keystone of capitalism and economic success.  Without initiative, everyone is mired in the same economic morass with the means of producti0n held in the hands of the state/government and no hope of anyone ever getting ahead.  A social and economic dead end.  That’s why socialism is futile, dead and buried, and capitalism, which results in economic empowerment, is alive and well.  These are essential facts, not hyperbole, which must be reckoned with in any consideration of illegal immigration.

Capitalism provides economic wealth and can also provide social wealth.  This means economic empowerment and the ability to fight poverty and terrorism among other things.  Most importantly, it is also the key to solving illegal immigration issues.  But don’t just take my word for it.  Look at a compelling case history, based on an  October 10, 2014 Wall Street Journal article by Hernando De Soto, “The Capitalist Cure For Terrorism.”  While the article’s primary focus explains how capitalism helped to curb terrorism in Peru, using Peru as a model there is no reason why capitalism cannot also be used to control illegal immigration, an issue which is subsumed in any terrorism threat.  It is, accordingly, eminently relevant to the three central American countries, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, which provide the bulk of the mass exodus to the U.S. border.

The essence of De Soto’s article is simply this: capitalism works outside the West, and Latin cultures can and do understand market economics. What’s needed is government leadership (yes, even with capitalism, government can still be useful) to build, streamline and fortify laws and structures that let capitalism flourish. Although I have not visited these countries, I did undertake online research to search for the existence of laws allowing and promoting private enterprise.   This online research did not reveal the existence of any laws in Honduras, Guatemala, or El Salvador, which provide and/or promote the opportunity for private enterprise by local citizenry to enter and operate their own businesses as to exports or otherwise.  In Honduras, from which 80% of the mass exodus flows,  unemployment, poverty, political persecution and resulting violence are the culprits. These issues exist throughout Central America and are undoubtedly the major flaw in the economic infrastructure in these countries.  In other words endemic corruption together with the forces in power acting to keep power away from the people underlie the exodus.

All three countries rely heavily on exports as a source of income and accordingly need people to produce the goods for exportation.  So, if any form of private enterprise exists, why are so many people leaving?  How many would leave their own business if they had one?  The answer to the mass exodus from these countries is clearly twofold: security and opportunity.   Perhaps a lesson can be drawn from De Soto’s experience as to each issue.

Those seeking asylum from violence may find the solution in a mixed-class volunteer army, as was done in Peru.  This approach should provide the best means of combating  any corruption in the police/military.   As De Soto noted in his article, Peru “rapidly fielded a much larger, mixed-class volunteer army – four times the army’s previous size – and won the war [against terror] in short order.”

Together with providing security for the people,  providing opportunity for small businesses to flourish is necessary.  The starting point is capitalism.  A strong volunteer army cannot come into existence absent a free market economy, which in turn needs capitalism to flourish.  The volunteer army should be coupled with an accessible legal framework with which to start and operate businesses.   The root cause of the exodus is clearly failure of the economic infrastructure in these countries –  the inability of individuals to start and operate a business because of economic strangulation from over regulation or repressive laws leading to loss of opportunity.  In Guatemala for example, according to one source, there are 24 tax payments per year. Government mismanagement of the economy persists in El Salvador according to another.  A heavy dose of regulation cutting, ala President Trump’s approach, as applied here in the USA, to eliminate over regulation of business, is vital to economic opportunity.  Better results are possible.

Cutting the regulatory stranglehold on businesses has been a strong component in building today’s extremely strong American economy.  Seeing the countryside in Central America as a breeding ground for a new, modern capitalist economy is an untried approach which should be combined with strong police/military intervention to combat and deter unnecessary violence.  This combination will supply the key answer to the mass exodus from these three Central American countries.  It may appear to be an oversimplification of a difficult situation but since nothing else seems to be working, it’s worth serious consideration.  De Soto put it aptly.  “The trick is to start…Throughout history, capitalism has been created by those who were once poor.”

Arnold G. Regardie

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under active voice, clear writing, good diction, history, punctuation, sound sentence structure, Writing Improvement

Capitalism – The Key To Controlling Illegal Immigration

There may not be too many basic truisms in life but here’s one: capitalism works, socialism doesn’t. Write it down.  It’s the answer to illegal immigration.

The proof of the pudding lies in— historical fact. Remember John Adams’ argument to the jury in the famous 1770 Boston Massacre case, “Facts are things,” i.e., not to be forgotten. Same here.  Socialist-minded Dems shy away from comparisons to capitalism, a comparison which is anathema to them.  Because the greatest example of capitalism working is right here, under their noses, the good ol’ USA.  Socialism destroys initiative, the keystone of capitalism, and economic success.  Without initiative, everyone is mired in the same economic morass with the means of producti0n held in the hands of the state/government and no hope of anyone ever getting ahead.  A social and economic dead end.  That’s why socialism is futile, dead and buried, and capitalism, which results in economic empowerment, is alive and well.  These are essential facts, not hyperbole, which must be reckoned with in any consideration of illegal immigration.

Capitalism provides economic wealth and can also provide social wealth.  This means economic empowerment and the ability to fight poverty and terrorism among other things.  Most importantly, it is also the key to solving illegal immigration issues.  But don’t just take my word for it.  Look at a compelling case history, based on an  October 10, 2014 Wall Street Journal article by Hernando De Soto, “The Capitalist Cure For Terrorism.”  While the article’s primary focus explains how capitalism helped to curb terrorism in Peru, using Peru as a model there is no reason why capitalism cannot also be used to control illegal immigration, an issue which is subsumed in any terrorism threat.  It is, accordingly, eminently relevant to the three central American countries, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, which provide the bulk of the mass exodus to the U.S. border.

The essence of De Soto’s article is simply this: capitalism works outside the West, and Latin cultures can and do understand market economics. What’s needed is government leadership (yes, even with capitalism, government can still be useful) to build, streamline and fortify laws and structures that let capitalism flourish. Although I have not visited these countries, I did undertake online research to search for the existence of laws allowing and promoting private enterprise.   This online research did not reveal the existence of any laws in Honduras, Guatemala, or El Salvador, which provide and/or promote the opportunity for private enterprise by local citizenry to enter and operate their own businesses as to exports or otherwise.  In Honduras, from which 80% of the mass exodus flows,  unemployment, poverty, political persecution and resulting violence are the culprits. These issues exist throughout Central America and are undoubtedly the major flaw in the economic infrastructure in these countries.  In other words endemic corruption together with the forces in power acting to keep power away from the people underlie the exodus.

All three countries rely heavily on exports as a source of income and accordingly need people to produce the goods for exportation.  So, if any form of private enterprise exists, why are so many people leaving?  How many would leave their own business if they had one?  The answer to the mass exodus from these countries is clearly twofold: security and opportunity.   Perhaps a lesson can be drawn from De Soto’s experience as to each issue.

Those seeking seeking asylum from violence may find the solution in a mixed-class volunteer army, as was done in Peru.  This approach should provide the best means of combating  any corruption in the police/military.   As De Soto noted in his article, Peru “rapidly fielded a much larger, mixed-class volunteer army – four times the army’s previous size – and won the war [against terror] in short order.”

Together with providing security for the people,  providing opportunity for small businesses to flourish is necessary.  The starting point is capitalism.  A strong volunteer army cannot come into existence absent a free market economy, which in turn needs capitalism to flourish.  The volunteer army should be coupled with an accessible legal framework with which to start and operate businesses.   The root cause of the exodus is clearly failure of the economic infrastructure in these countries –  the inability of individuals to start and operate a business because of economic strangulation from over regulation or repressive laws leading to loss of opportunity.  In Guatemala for example, according to one source, there are 24 tax payments per year. Government mismanagement of the economy persists in El Salvador according to another.  A heavy dose of regulation cutting, ala President Trump’s approach, as applied here in the USA, to eliminate over regulation of business, is vital to economic opportunity.  Better results are possible.

Cutting the regulatory stranglehold on businesses has been a strong component in building today’s extremely strong American economy.  Seeing the countryside in Central America as a breeding ground for a new, modern capitalist economy is an untried approach which should be combined with strong police/military intervention to combat and deter unnecessary violence.  This combination will supply the key answer to the mass exodus from these three Central American countries.  It may appear to be an oversimplification of a difficult situation but since nothing else seems to be working, it’s worth serious consideration.  De Soto put it aptly.  “The trick is to start…Throughout history, capitalism has been created by those who were once poor.”

Arnold G. Regardie

Leave a comment

Filed under clear writing

Rear Admiral Raymond A. Spruance – The Forgotten Hero of the Battle of Midway

United States Navy research offers valuable insights into the study of leadership.  This research into the concept of leadership by the United States Navy has resulted in a rich library of information available to those interested in this area from both historical and academic standpoints.   For example, in its book entitled “Nineteen-Gun Salute”, the Naval War College has published a collection of case studies of exemplary naval officers to illustrate operational, strategic, and diplomatic naval leadership during the 20th and early 21st centuries.  These case studies provide valuable insights into the planning behind some of the most important victories in U.S. naval history.  The unstated but underlying thesis of this book is that effective leadership requires the selection of qualified subordinates.  The battle of Midway Island, June 2-4, 1942, is illustrative of this concept.

Midway Island, the most northern island in the Hawaiian archipelago, is situated approximately halfway between North America and Asia.  It was considered the second most important area to defend by the United States, ranked right behind Pearl Harbor.  Occupation by the Japanese would have provided them with a base to directly  attack the Hawaiian Islands as well as threaten the west coast of the United States.

Coming as it did at the outset of World War II, the battle of Midway was a pivotal battle, resulting in the loss of four Japanese aircraft carriers.  It was perhaps the U.S. Navy’s greatest victory as the Navy, facing a numerically vastly  superior enemy,  broke the back of the Imperial Japanese Navy, previously believed by many to be an unstoppable force.  It significantly increased the credibility of the United States Navy, not to mention the United States itself, as a world class fighting power.

In 1942, Admiral Chester Nimitz, as Pacific Theater Commander, was responsible for overall management of the war in the Pacific.  His wise choice of qualified subordinate officers was critical to the success of the American effort at Midway.  Nimitz’s decision to select Rear Admiral Raymond A. Spruance, one of the case studies written up in “Nineteen-Gun Salute,” to replace the recently hospitalized Admiral William Halsey, was profound.  Spruance, who had no battle experience but had commanded six ships previously, was highly thought of by Halsey, who recommended him to Nimitz.  Spruance has been called the hero of Midway, not without justification.

Author Herman Wouk has been called an American legend, also not without justification.  He was a riveting story teller, and his epic novel of World War II, “War and Remembrance”, a thoroughly believeable mixture of fact and fiction, stands out as an example.  This work is mentioned here because of Wouk’s insightful description of the battle of Midway and of Admiral Spruance. We largely rely on this book to capture the essence of Spruance’s leadership traits.

Admiral Spruance was in charge of Task Force Sixteen at Midway, including carriers Hornet and Enterprise and a mixture of support ships.  This TF lay several hundred miles to the northeast of Midway, while the Japanese task force under Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo lay several hundred miles to the northwest.  As described by Wouk, Spruance made three decisions which stamped him as a master naval strategist.  His first decision, probably the key decision, was to launch all the aircraft from the Hornet and Enterprise at 7am the morning of June 4, 1942, risking everything to get in the first surprise blow. The decision was vital though costly.  Many planes could not even find the Japanese, running out of fuel or returning with bomb loads intact.  The torpedo planes suffered egregiously, losing 47 out of 58 to Japanese anti-aircraft fire and Zero fighter planes.  Yet enough  dive bombers reached their target later at about 10:30 that morning to execute the devastating blitz in the space of about 5 minutes that left three Japanese carriers, Akagi, Kaga, and Suryu, ablaze and out of action.  A fourth carrier, Hiryu, was later hit by Spruance’s forces and left in flames.

Next, making another important decision, Spruance steamed westward toward the oncoming Yamamoto force just long enough to catch the Soryu and destroy it.  After recovering his aircraft he reversed course and headed eastward away from the enemy.  After midnight he again reversed course arriving at a position by dawn to protect Midway from a possible invasion.  This course of action also enabled Spruance to be in a position where his ships remained safe and secure after having won a crucial battle against far superior forces.

Finally, his third decision was to break off any further battle and return home to Pearl Harbor.  With his ships running low on fuel and with exhausted aviators, this final decision sealed the Midway victory.

Midway marked a turning point in the war in the Pacific.  Having lost its  first line carrier squadrons which could never be replaced, Japan was now on the run with an accompanying change in morale from elan to desperation.  The architect of Pearl Harbor, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, had been beaten, not by Admiral Bull Halsey,  but by Raymond A. Spruance, an anonymous rear admiral plucked from the ranks of America’s rear admirals whose unknown but ever present leadership traits were paramount.

My new book, “The Pearl Harbor Congressional Cover-Up – A True Account of How a Partisan Congress Misled the American People on the Pearl Harbor Attack, December 7. 1941.  Featuring Historic Lessons on the Failure of Leadership to Foresee the attack and to Avert war with Japan,” is now available on Amazon both in print and in ebook.

Arnold G. Regardie

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under clear writing

The “Bomb Plot” Messages Failed To Alert Washington That Pearl Harbor Would Be Attacked

This installment, once more, provides excerpts from my new book, “The Pearl Harbor Congressional Cover-Up” as part of the series on leadership and success.  It deals with a 1945 congressional investigation into the attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941.  A 10-member joint congressional committee conducted the investigation over several arduous months.  Its report, reached by an 8-2 vote, was released to the public on July 20, 1946.  Part of the report concerns the intercepted Japanese “bomb plot” message and related messages, which are reviewed in this installment.  The messages themselves, which are too lengthy to be included here, are repeated verbatim in the book.

Beginning September 24, 1941, several intercepted and decoded secret Japanese war plans messages indicated ships in Pearl Harbor were marked for attack; little information was passed on to Hawaiian commanders.  The September 24, 1941 “Bomb Plot Message” and other related messages which followed it, revealed detailed information about Japanese interest in Pearl Harbor.  The message was delivered to President Roosevelt and other high Washington officials on October 9, 1941.  These intercepted September and November, 1941 messages were of singular importance in revealing Japanese intentions to target Pearl Harbor for an attack.  They were however never transmitted to Hawaii by Washington.  Neither Admiral Husband Kimmel, in charge of the Pacific Fleet, nor General Walter Short who headed the Army command there, saw them before the attack.

Representative Frank Keefe (R-WI), a member of the investigating committee, described the relevance of the messages clearly and precisely.  He wrote that “the ‘bomb plot’ message and those messages relating to Pearl Harbor which followed it meant that ships of the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor were marked for a Japanese attack…These reports which Japan thus sought and received had a useful purpose only in planning and executing an attack upon the ships in port…They were the product of instructions emanating from the government of Japan in Tokyo.  Officers of the high command in Washington  have admitted before us that this message, if correctly evaluated, meant an attack on ships of the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor.”

The two committee members who dissented to the report put it quite succinctly:  “The probability that the Pacific Fleet would be attacked at Pearl Harbor was clear from the “bomb plot” available in Washington as early as October 9, 1941…[These] messages meant that ships of the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor were marked for a Japanese attack.  No other American harbor was divided into subareas by Japan.  And no other American harbor had such a large share of the Fleet to protect.”

Although the eight  Joint Committee members who signed the report were unable to conclude that the intercepted messages pointed directly to an attack on Pearl Harbor nor could they conclude that the intercepted plan was a bomb plot, nevertheless they opined that the messages should have received careful consideration and created a serious question as to their significance.  The intelligence should have been appreciated and supplied to the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet and the commanding general of the Army’s Hawaiian Department.

Despite the foregoing, the 8-member majority made the remarkable finding that “Washington and Hawaii possessed unusually significant and vital intelligence.  Had greater imagination and a keener awareness of the significance of intelligence existed,  concentrating and applying it to particular situations, it is proper to suggest that someone should have concluded that Pearl Harbor was a likely point of attack.”

This latter admission by the majority was as close as they came to admitting that the Pearl Harbor attack was foreseeable, as the 2-member minority claimed.  It should be noted that the majority failed to specify exactly what information was in the hands of the Hawaiian commanders because the record before the Committee showed that Hawaii had no such information.  That leaves unspecified personnel in Washington as being responsible  for the lack of imagination and awareness.

Arnold G. Regardie

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under active voice, clear writing, good diction, history, sound sentence structure

Cordell Hull’s Historic Blunder – A Primer on the Failure of Leadership

This installment of my series on leadership and success is excerpted from my new book, “The Pearl Harbor Congressional Cover-Up – A True Account of How a Partisan Congress Misled the American People on the Pearl Harbor Attack,December 7. 1941. Featuring Historic Lessons on the Failure of Leadership to Foresee the Attack and to Avert War with Japan.” It is available on Amazon.

On November 26, 1941, Secretary of State Cordell Hull stood at the gates of history, a step away from becoming a diplomatic legend. What followed instead was catastrophic. Hull’s failure to avoid the unspeakable horrors of war with Japan and its enormous consequences is described in the book. It was a war marked by a devastating human toll and immense financial costs. Hull’s aborted November 1941 diplomatic efforts in abandoning the modus vivendi proposal to Japan for a 3-month truce is a lesson in the failure of accountability for all those who aspire to leadership, for no one can become a successful leader without being fully accountable for her/her actions.  This failure, marked by Hull’s admission that he was turning the whole thing over the the Army and Navy, effectively amounted to his “throwing in the towel.”  It was a total failure in accountability for America’s top diplomat, a failure to follow through and explore all avenues for peace, played out on a world scale.  His unfortunate lack of vision at this most crucial moment in history may stamp him as one of the most shortsighted, even incompetent, secretaries of state to ever hold office.

The scuttling of the modus vivendi and the substitution of Hull’s November 26 memorandum, considered by the Japanese to be an ultimatum, was followed 11 days later by the attack on Pearl Harbor, a result it may be observed, consonant with the Administration’s previously adopted policy of waiting for Japan to strike the first blow.  This course of events may never have come to pass had there been vision by Hull in those dark days of November, 1941.  There was simply too much at stake in terms of averting the prospect of total war not to have fully explored all possible avenues of peace.

The onus for Hull’s failure also falls on President Roosevelt for not following through on his hand written blue print for a modus vivendi which had been personally delivered to Hull some days earlier, likely on November 20 after receiving the Japanese proposal on that date.

A press release was issued by the White House on December 1, 1943, following a conference in North Africa attended by President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.  The press release stated in part that, “The Three Great Allies expressed their resolve to bring unrelenting pressure against their brutal enemies by sea, land and air…The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan… It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped … of all territories she has taken by violence and greed…With these objects in view the Three Allies…will continue to persevere in the serious and prolonged operations necessary to procure the unconditional surrender of Japan.”   This press release constituted mute evidence of the daunting task faced by the Allies in 1943 in fighting the war with Japan.

Arnold G. Regardie

Leave a comment

Filed under active voice, clear writing, good diction, history, sound sentence structure

Breaking the Japanese “Winds Code” Was the Tipoff to Pearl Harbor

This week’s installment of my weekly series is an exception to my standard theme of leadership and courage.  I am devoting this installment to my new book, “The Pearl Harbor Congressional Cover-Up – A True Account of How a Partisan Congress Misled the American People on the Pearl Harbor Attack, December 7, 1941. Featuring Historic Lessons on the Failure of Leadership to Foresee the Attack and to Avert War with Japan.” It is now available in print and ebook on Amazon.

This book is about the attack by Japanese air and naval forces on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941.  But it is not just another book about Pearl Harbor.  It is a historically significant book, based on the challenge of two U.S. Senators to the 1946 congressional report on the attack as misleading to the American people.  The report was released to the public following an 8-2 vote of the 10-member joint congressional committee which conducted the investigation.

This installment deals with only one aspect of the book, but one which is intriguing.  It concerns the Japanese “Winds code,” which the Japanese had set up on November 19, 1941 to warn their diplomatic outposts of an imminent break in relations with the United States, Great Britain or Russia.  The code incorporated weather elements as the heart of the warning.  The 8-member majority of the Committee concluded that no genuine “winds” message in activation of the code was received by the War or Navy Departments prior to the attack.  The 2-member minority noted that evidence before the Army Pearl Harbor Board and the Hart Inquiry, each concluding in 1944, was that such a message had been received.  The entire winds code analysis which was attached to the Report as Appendix E has been included in my book.  Certain excerpts are repeated here.

On November 19, 1941 Japanese diplomats in Washington D.C. were advised by Tokyo that “In case of emergency (danger of cutting off our diplomatic relations), and the cutting off of international communications, the following warnings will be added in the middle of the daily Japanese language short-wave news broadcast.

In case of Japan-U.S. relations in danger: HIGASHI NO KAZEAME (East wind rain);

Japan-U.S.S.R. relations: KITA NO KAZE KUMORI (North wind cloudy);

Japan-British relations: (NISHI NO KAZE HARE (West wind clear).”

Japanese diplomats were further advised that when diplomatic relations were becoming dangerous, the following would be added at the beginning and end of general intelligence broadcasts:

If it is Japan-U.S. relations, “HIGASHI”

Japan-Russia relations, “KITA”

Japan-British relations (including Thai, Malaya and Dutch East Indies), “NISHI”

While the majority of the Report signers conceded that the question of the winds code  was one of the few  disputed factual issues concerning the Pearl Harbor investigation, they also concluded that according to “the preponderate weight” of the evidence, no genuine execute message was intercepted or received in the War and Navy Departments prior to the attack.  The majority added that “[g]ranting for purposes of discussion that a genuine execute message applying to the winds code was intercepted before December 7, we believe that such fact would have added nothing to what was already known concerning the critical character of our relations with the Empire of Japan.”

As my book points out, there is one additional element to be considered.  Appendix E focuses on whether or not a winds execute message was received by U.S. Intelligence before December 7.  But when the “east wind, rain” message is viewed in context with the “bomb plot” messages received in September and November, 1941 (discussed in Chapter 5 of the book), a significant sequence of events becomes apparent, i.e., not only that Pearl Harbor was the target of a planned Japanese attack but that according to the winds code an attack was imminent.

The White House received the first of the bomb plot messages as early as October 9, 1941.  This message arguably provided President Roosevelt and other high ranking Washington officials with information amounting to an alert for the follow-up or “when” message, which would have been the winds execute message.  The State Department and ostensibly the White House had received the winds alert message on December 4, which is to be distinguished from the winds activation or execute message.

While the evidence is disputed as to whether a winds execute message was also received on that date, a strong argument can be made that taking all the information available to the White House and other high ranking Washington officials together that they should have been on the alert for an attack against Pearl Harbor.

The “bomb plot” messages are discussed in detail in my book, as are President Harry Truman’s restrictions on the investigation, arguably in violation of the separation of powers doctrine imbedded in the Constitution, and Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s historic diplomatic blunder in not making the final effort to avert war with Japan.

Arnold G. Regardie

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under clear writing