US President Roosevelt and PEARL HARBOR Conspiracy

The key question: Why was the USA so unprepared for the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941?

Your task: Your task is to study the sources and reach an official judgment on why the US was taken so much by surprise at Pearl Harbor in 1941.

On the morning of December 7th 1941 Japanese aircraft and submarines attacked the US Pacific fleet in its base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
The fleet was devastated and it was pure luck that the most important ships in the fleet, the US aircraft carriers, were out at sea. Why was the USA taken so completely by surprise?

FROM BRITISH NEWSREEL CALLED PEARL HARBOUR – FIRST

PICTURES, JANUARY 1942

The December disaster at Pearl Harbour; this is how the great American naval base looked after waves of Japanese bombers had carried out their stab in the back raid.

Your Ad Here

The Battleship Arizona and four other warships destroyed. The Airbase on the island and large numbers of aircraft bombed and burned out in one devastating treacherous blow.  Japan’s vicious attempt to cripple the American Pacific fleet before any declaration of war

Taken by surprise the fighter aircraft at Hickham Field and Wheeler Field had little chance of engaging the enemy bombers who were thus able to wreak their destruction almost unhampered. a British newsreel feature from January 1942. It shows the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

The actual attack took place on December 7th 1941 but it would have taken some time to get the film edited and approved for use with a British audience.

There was probably a lot of discussion about how to present the news without damaging morale too much in Britain.

WW2 broke out in Europe in 1939. The USA was neutral in the early stages of the war although it was clear that US President Roosevelt was no friend of Nazi Germany or its ally Japan. In Japan, hard line military commanders had become increasingly powerful during the 1930s. Japan had built up an empire in Asia and these leaders wanted Japan to become Asia’s leading power. They knew that the USA would stand in their way and that war with America would happen some time. They decided to try and knock out the US fleet in the Pacific. The plan was to buy time to build up their resources in the Pacific so that Japan would be ready to take on the USA once it recovered from the attack at Pearl Harbor.

By 1941 Japan was a dominating force in Asia. It invaded Manchuria in North

East China in 1931 and then moved deeper into the country in 1937. By July

1941, Japan had flooded French Indochina (now Vietnam) with troops. It intended to use these territories as a platform to take control of British territories like Malaya and Singapore, the Dutch East Indies and the US dominated Philippines. After Pearl Harbor this plan worked very effectively.

At one point it seemed that even Australia might be under threat from invasion.

The US Pacific fleet had two main bases, Pearl Harbor in Hawaii and San Diego in California. San Diego would have been out of range from Japanese attack.

Although the damage was very severe, the most important ships in the fleet, the US aircraft carriers, were out at sea. This was to prove decisive in the outcome of the Pacific War.

A report by a British naval intelligence officer:

A report by a British naval intelligence officer

A report by a British naval officer soon after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The officer clearly believed that the Japanese citizens living in and around

Pearl Harbor could not be trusted. He was concerned that Japanese citizens in the British possession of Singapore might act as agents for a Japanese attack there.

1. Study the first paragraph of this source. Does it give you confidence in the accuracy of the rest of the information in the source?

2. Why did the Japanese attack when they did?

3. According to the source, did some Japanese in Pearl Harbor know the date?

How convincing is this evidence?

4. What does the writer imply was the significance of the actions of the Japanese girls and the restaurant owner? Do you find this evidence convincing?

5. Does this source convince you that Japanese spies and infiltrators played a key role in the Pearl Harbor attack?

6. Has a big event ever happened in your school (e.g. a fire)? Did rumours travel around after the event and how accurate did they turn out to be?

Does this affect your view of this source?

7. Could any parts of this source be used as evidence in your report on the key question?

An interview with a Japanese officer at Pearl

Harbor

An interview with a Japanese officer at Pearl

An interview with a Japanese officer at Pearl 2

from an interview with Captain Mitsuo Fuchida of the Japanese navy that took place after the war had ended.

After Japan surrendered in September 1945 intelligence officers went through

Japanese records and interviewed Japanese officers about key events in the war to see what lessons they could learn.

By 1941 Japan was a dominating force in Asia. It invaded Manchuria in North

East China in 1931 and then moved deeper into the country in 1937. By July

1941, Japan had flooded French Indochina (now Vietnam) with troops. It intended to use these territories as a platform to take control of British territories like Malaya and Singapore, the Dutch East Indies and the US dominated Philippines. After Pearl Harbor this plan worked very effectively.

At one point it seemed that even Australia might be under threat from invasion.

1. Does this source suggest the attack on Pearl Harbor was well planned?

2. Would you regard this source as a reliable source of information about the

Japanese attack?

3. Could any parts of this source be used as evidence in your report on the key question?

An American report on the attack on Pearl Harbor

in 1941

An American report on the attack on Pearl Harbor

An American report on the attack on Pearl Harbor  2

from an American report produced in 1945 on what happened at Pearl Harbor and who was responsible.

An American officer had produced an earlier report in 1944 but saw no evidence in 1945 to change his mind.

General Short was the overall commander in charge of the base at Pearl Harbor.

The other senior commander was Admiral Kimmel. In the enquiry after Pearl

Harbor these two men got most of the blame for the US being unprepared for the attack.

After Japan surrendered in September 1945 intelligence officers went through

Japanese records and interviewed Japanese officers about key events in the war. This led to demands for re-opening the enquiry into Pearl Harbor. This did happen but it was found that no new evidence came to light that changed the verdict. General Short and Admiral Kimmel were held responsible.

1. What was the biggest misjudgement that General Short made?

2. Was he the only person who thought this way?

3. Why did General Short think this way?

4. What factors could be used to defend General Short?

5. What points are used against him?

6. Do you think it was fair that Short got most of the blame?

7. Could any parts of this source be used as evidence in your report on the key question?

A statement by US President Truman on the outcome of the

enquiry into Pearl Harbor, August 1945

A press statement made by US President Truman in August 1945.

When he mentions the President in his statement he is referring to the previous President, Franklin D Roosevelt.

Truman became President in April 1945 after the death of President Roosevelt.

As soon as war broke out in 1939 President Roosevelt was very concerned. He feared that if Nazi Germany won the war in Europe it would be a threat to the security of the USA. However, most Americans were totally opposed to involvement in the war.

Roosevelt sent vast amounts of vital war equipment and medical supplies to Britain and her allies in what was called the Lend Lease scheme. There is not much doubt that Roosevelt and his chief advisers felt war was inevitable with both Japan and Germany.

1. According to this source, who or what was to blame for Pearl Harbor?

2. In what ways does this view contradict or support other sources in this investigation?

3. Could any parts of this source be used as evidence in your report on the key question?