Monday, December 8, 2008


This is coolbert:

“You don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing!!”

From the Chicago Tribune yesterday:

December 7th, a day that will live in infamy!"

"Data that lived in infamy"

"Historians debunk a theory; U.S. had warning of attack on Pearl Harbor"

“It has remained one of the World War II’s most enduring mysteries. Who in Washington knew what and when before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941?”

“Specifically, who heard or saw a transcript of a Tokyo short-wave radio news broadcast that was interrupted by a prearranged coded weather report. A Japanese message intercepted and decoded on Nov. 19, 1941 . . . appear to lay out the “winds execute” situation. If diplomatic relations were 'in danger' with one of three countries, a coded phrase would be repeated a special weather bulletin”

The “winds execute” messages. Indicating to Japanese diplomatic staff that an outbreak of hostilities was imminent, AND in what direction military operations would be aimed at!

“In danger” - - meaning, most specifically - - WAR!!

Here, the actual decrypt of: "A Japanese message intercepted and decoded on Nov. 19, 1941"

"From: Tokyo
"To: Washington
"19 November 1941
"Circular #2353
"Regarding the broadcast of a special message in an emergency.
"In case of emergency (danger of cutting off our diplomatic relations), and the cutting off of international communications, the following warning will be added in the middle of the daily Japanese language short wave news broadcast.
"(1) In case of a Japan‑U. S. relations in danger: HIGASHI NO KAZEAME (East wind rain).
"(2) Japan‑U. S. S. R. relations: KITANOKAZE KUMORI (North wind cloudy).
"(3) Japan‑British relations: NISHI NO KAZE HARE (West wind clear).
"This signal will be given in the middle and at the end as a weather forecast and each sentence will be repeated twice. When this is heard please destroy all code papers, etc. This is as yet to be a completely secret arrangement.

“East wind rain” would mean the U.S.; “north wind cloudy,” the Soviet Union; and “west wind clear,” Britain.

NO! This IS NOT AS I HAVE UNDERSTOOD IT. The “WINDS” message consisted of FOUR parts, NOT THREE!! This specific article in the Tribune and what the historians have researched and said to be true is of itself FALSE!!??

Correctly read, as I recall:

“East wind rain” would mean the U.S.; “north wind cloudy,” the Soviet Union; and “west wind clear,” CHINA; AND “south wind . . . BRITAIN [and Holland too for that matter]”!!

My recollection is:

South wind would have referred to the military operations against the Malay Peninsula, Isthmus of Kra, [English] and the Dutch East Indies [Holland]. West wind would have referred to renewed and intensified military operations against China. Operations previously stagnated ever since the Battle of Wuhan!!

That there was a formatted “winds” message existed is beyond question!? Plain-text but encoded communication preparations to be made prior to Pearl Harbor. What is at question is whether the actual message was transmitted AND HEARD BY U.S. RADIO INTERCEPTORS!!

These historians for the National Security Agency [NSA] are following the Rankeian style of histiography? An ACTUAL DOCUMENT MUST BE FOUND TO BUTTRESS PERSONAL HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS AND ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE?!


“ [NSA historians] attribute accounts of the message being broadcast to the flawed or fabricated memory of some witnesses, perhaps to deflect culpability for other officials for . . . insufficient readiness for war.”

Again, anecdotal account, personal memory, etc., of actual participants, according to von Ranke, are not to be relied upon! An actual DOCUMENT MUST BE HAD Such a document is not totally infallible, but is to be MORE relied upon where histiography is concerned.

It has been now, what is it, almost seventy years since the attack on Pearl Harbor. And STILL, this stuff is not properly sorted out!? I think it is generally accepted that American [and British and Dutch for that matter] military planners did anticipate at attack SOMEWHERE IN THE PACIFIC, IN SOME DIRECTION! But DID NOT HAVE with exactitude the place and time so greatly desired by decision makers!

And with regard to the latest analysis, IS STILL WRONG!!??


No comments: