Translate

Thursday, December 8, 2016

PEARL HARBOR: HAWAII WAS SURPRISED; FDR WAS NOT

PEARL HARBOR: HAWAII WAS SURPRISED; 
FDR WAS NOT 
BY JAMES PERLOFF
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
On Sunday, December 7, 1941, Japan launched a sneak attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, shattering the peace of a beautiful Hawaiian morning and leaving much of the fleet broken and burning. The destruction and death that the Japanese military visited upon Pearl Harbor that day — 18 naval vessels (including eight battleships) sunk or heavily damaged, 188 planes destroyed, over 2,000 servicemen killed — were exacerbated by the fact that American commanders in Hawaii were caught by surprise. But that was not the case in Washington.
Comprehensive research has shown not only that Washington knew in advance of the attack, but that it deliberately withheld its foreknowledge from our commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the "surprise" attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II. Oliver Lyttleton, British Minister of Production, stated in 1944: "Japan was provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war."
Although FDR desired to directly involve the United States in the Second World War, his intentions sharply contradicted his public pronouncements. A pre-war Gallup poll showed 88 percent of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the European war. Citizens realized that U.S. participation in World War I had not made a better world, and in a 1940 (election-year) speech, Roosevelt typically stated: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."
But privately, the president planned the opposite. Roosevelt dispatched his closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, to meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in January 1941. Hopkins told Churchill: "The President is determined that we [the United States and England] shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him — there is nothing he will not do so far as he has human power." William Stevenson noted in A Man Called Intrepid that American-British military staff talks began that same month under "utmost secrecy," which, he clarified, "meant preventing disclosure to the American public." Even Robert Sherwood, the president's friendly biographer, said: "If the isolationists had known the full extent of the secret alliance between the United States and Britain, their demands for impeachment would have rumbled like thunder throughout the land."
Background to Betrayal
Roosevelt's intentions were nearly exposed in 1940 when Tyler Kent, a code clerk at the U.S. embassy in London, discovered secret dispatches between Roosevelt and Churchill. These revealed that FDR — despite contrary campaign promises — was determined to engage America in the war. Kent smuggled some of the documents out of the embassy, hoping to alert the American public — but was caught. With U.S. government approval, he was tried in a secret British court and confined to a British prison until the war's end.
During World War II's early days, the president offered numerous provocations to Germany: freezing its assets; shipping 50 destroyers to Britain; and depth-charging U-boats. The Germans did not retaliate, however. They knew America's entry into World War I had shifted the balance of power against them, and they shunned a repeat of that scenario. FDR therefore switched his focus to Japan. Japan had signed a mutual defense pact with Germany and Italy (the Tripartite Treaty). Roosevelt knew that if Japan went to war with the United States, Germany and Italy would be compelled to declare war on America — thus entangling us in the European conflict by the back door. As Harold Ickes, secretary of the Interior, said in October 1941: "For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan."
Much new light has been shed on Pearl Harbor through the recent work of Robert B. Stinnett, a World War II Navy veteran. Stinnett has obtained numerous relevant documents through the Freedom of Information Act. In Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (2000), the book so brusquely dismissed by director Bruckheimer, Stinnett reveals that Roosevelt's plan to provoke Japan began with a memorandum from Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence. The memorandum advocated eight actions predicted to lead Japan into attacking the United States. McCollum wrote: "If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better." FDR enacted all eight of McCollum's provocative steps — and more.
While no one can excuse Japan's belligerence in those days, it is also true that our government provoked that country in various ways — freezing her assets in America; closing the Panama Canal to her shipping; progressively halting vital exports to Japan until we finally joined Britain in an all-out embargo; sending a hostile note to the Japanese ambassador implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its Pacific policies; and on November 26th — just 11 days before the Japanese attack — delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all troops from China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy.
After meeting with President Roosevelt on October 16, 1941, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary: "We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move — overt move." On November 25, the day before the ultimatum was sent to Japan's ambassadors, Stimson wrote in his diary: "The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot...."
The bait offered Japan was our Pacific Fleet. In 1940, Admiral J.O. Richardson, the fleet's commander, flew to Washington to protest FDR's decision to permanently base the fleet in Hawaii instead of its normal berthing on the U.S. West Coast. The admiral had sound reasons: Pearl Harbor was vulnerable to attack, being approachable from any direction; it could not be effectively rigged with nets and baffles to defend against torpedo planes; and in Hawaii it would be hard to supply and train crews for his undermanned vessels. Pearl Harbor also lacked adequate fuel supplies and dry docks, and keeping men far from their families would create morale problems. The argument became heated. Said Richardson: "I came away with the impression that, despite his spoken word, the President was fully determined to put the United States into the war if Great Britain could hold out until he was reelected."
Richardson was quickly relieved of command. Replacing him was Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Kimmel also informed Roosevelt of Pearl Harbor's deficiencies, but accepted placement there, trusting that Washington would notify him of any intelligence pointing to attack. This proved to be misplaced trust. As Washington watched Japan preparing to assault Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel, as well as his Army counterpart in Hawaii, General Walter C. Short, were completely sealed off from the information pipeline.
Prior Knowledge
One of the most important elements in America's foreknowledge of Japan's intentions was our government's success in cracking Japan's secret diplomatic code known as "Purple." Tokyo used it to communicate to its embassies and consulates, including those in Washington and Hawaii. The code was so complex that it was enciphered and deciphered by machine. A talented group of American cryptoanalysts broke the code in 1940 and devised a facsimile of the Japanese machine. These, utilized by the intelligence sections of both the War and Navy departments, swiftly revealed Japan's diplomatic messages. The deciphered texts were nicknamed "Magic."
Copies of Magic were always promptly delivered in locked pouches to President Roosevelt, and the secretaries of State, War, and Navy. They also went to Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall and to the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Harold Stark. However, although three Purple decoding machines were allotted to Britain, none was sent to Pearl Harbor. Intercepts of ciphered messages radioed between Tokyo and its Honolulu consulate had to be forwarded to Washington for decrypting. Thus Kimmel and Short, the Hawaiian commanders, were at the mercy of Washington for feedback. A request for their own decoding machine was rebuffed on the grounds that diplomatic traffic was of insufficient interest to soldiers.
How untrue that was! On October 9, 1941, the War Department decoded a Tokyo-to-Honolulu dispatch instructing the Consul General to divide Pearl Harbor into five specified areas and to report the exact locations of American ships therein.
There is nothing unusual about spies watching ship movements — but reporting precise whereabouts of ships in dock has only one implication. Charles Willoughby, Douglas MacArthur's chief of intelligence, later wrote that the "reports were on a grid system of the inner harbor with coordinate locations of American men of war ... coordinate grid is the classical method for pinpoint target designation; our battleships had suddenly become targets." This information was never sent to Kimmel or Short.
Additional intercepts were decoded by Washington, all within one day of their original transmission:
• November 5th: Tokyo notified its Washington ambassadors that November 25th was the deadline for an agreement with the U.S.
• November 11th: They were warned, "The situation is nearing a climax, and the time is getting short."
• November 16th: The deadline was pushed up to November 29th. "The deadline absolutely cannot be changed," the dispatch said. "After that, things are automatically going to happen."
• November 29th (the U.S. ultimatum had now been received): The ambassadors were told a rupture in negotiations was "inevitable," but that Japan's leaders "do not wish you to give the impression that negotiations are broken off."
• November 30th: Tokyo ordered its Berlin embassy to inform the Germans that "the breaking out of war may come quicker than anyone dreams."
• December 1st: The deadline was again moved ahead. "[T]o prevent the United States from becoming unduly suspicious, we have been advising the press and others that ... the negotiations are continuing."
• December 1st-2nd: The Japanese embassies in non-Axis nations around the world were directed to dispose of their secret documents and all but one copy of their codes. (This was for a reason easy to fathom — when war breaks out, the diplomatic offices of a hostile state lose their immunity and are normally overtaken. One copy of code was retained so that final instructions could be received, after which the last code copy would be destroyed.)
An additional warning came via the so-called "winds" message. A November 18th intercept indicated that, if a break in U.S. relations were forthcoming, Tokyo would issue a special radio warning. This would not be in the Purple code, as it was intended to reach consulates and lesser agencies of Japan not equipped with the code or one of its machines. The message, to be repeated three times during a weather report, was "Higashi no kaze ame," meaning "East wind, rain." "East wind" signified the United States; "rain" signified diplomatic split — in effect, war.
This prospective message was deemed so significant that U.S. radio monitors were constantly watching for it, and the Navy Department typed it up on special reminder cards. On December 4th, "Higashi no kaze ame" was indeed broadcast and picked up by Washington intelligence.
On three different occasions since 1894, Japan had made surprise attacks coinciding with breaks in diplomatic relations. This history was not lost on President Roosevelt. Secretary Stimson, describing FDR's White House conference of November 25th, noted: "The President said the Japanese were notorious for making an attack without warning and stated that we might be attacked, say next Monday, for example." Nor was it lost on Washington's senior military officers, all of them War College graduates.
As Robert Stinnett has revealed, Washington was not only deciphering Japanese diplomatic messages, but naval dispatches as well. President Roosevelt had access to these intercepts via his routing officer, Lieutenant Commander McCollum, who had authored the original eight-point plan of provocation to Japan. So much secrecy has surrounded these naval dispatches that their existence was not revealed during any of the ten Pearl Harbor investigations, even the mini-probe Congress conducted in 1995. Most of Stinnett's requests for documents concerning Pearl Harbor have been denied as still classified, even under the Freedom of Information Act.
It was long presumed that as the Japanese fleet approached Pearl Harbor, it maintained complete radio silence. This is untrue. The fleet barely observed discretion, let alone silence. Naval intelligence intercepted and translated numerous dispatches, some clearly revealing that Pearl Harbor had been targeted. The most significant was the following, sent by Admiral Yamamoto to the Japanese First Air Fleet on November 26, 1941:
The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order.
So much official secrecy continues to surround the translations of the intercepted Japanese naval dispatches that it is not known if the foregoing message was sent to McCollum or seen by FDR. It is not even known who originally translated the intercept. One thing, however, is certain: The message's significance could not have been lost on the translator.
1941 also witnessed the following:
On January 27th, our ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew, sent a message to Washington stating: "The Peruvian Minister has informed a member of my staff that he has heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor with all their strength...."
On November 3rd, still relying on informants, Grew notified Secretary of State Cordell Hull: "War with the United States may come with dramatic and dangerous suddenness." He sent an even stronger warning on November 17th.
Congressman Martin Dies would write:
Early in 1941 the Dies Committee came into possession of a strategic map which gave clear proof of the intentions of the Japanese to make an assault on Pearl Harbor. The strategic map was prepared by the Japanese Imperial Military Intelligence Department. As soon as I received the document I telephoned Secretary of State Cordell Hull and told him what I had. Secretary Hull directed me not to let anyone know about the map and stated that he would call me as soon as he talked to President Roosevelt. In about an hour he telephoned to say that he had talked to Roosevelt and they agreed that it would be very serious if any information concerning this map reached the news services.... I told him it was a grave responsibility to withhold such vital information from the public. The Secretary assured me that he and Roosevelt considered it essential to national defense.
Dusko Popov was a Yugoslav who worked as a double agent for both Germany and Britain. His true allegiance was to the Allies. In the summer of 1941, the Nazis ordered Popov to Hawaii to make a detailed study of Pearl Harbor and its nearby airfields. The agent deduced that the mission betokened a surprise attack by the Japanese. In August, he fully reported this to the FBI in New York. J. Edgar Hoover later bitterly recalled that he had provided warnings to FDR about Pearl Harbor, but that Roosevelt told him not to pass the information any further and to just leave it in his (the president's) hands.
Kilsoo Haan, of the Sino-Korean People's League, received definite word from the Korean underground that the Japanese were planning to assault Hawaii "before Christmas." In November, after getting nowhere with the State Department, Haan convinced Iowa Senator Guy Gillette of his claim's merit. Gillette briefed the president, who laconically thanked him and said it would be looked into.
In Java, in early December, the Dutch Army decoded a dispatch from Tokyo to its Bangkok embassy, forecasting attacks on four sites including Hawaii. The Dutch passed the information to Brigadier General Elliot Thorpe, the U.S. military observer. Thorpe sent Washington a total of four warnings. The last went to General Marshall's intelligence chief. Thorpe was ordered to send no further messages concerning the matter. The Dutch also had their Washington military attaché, Colonel Weijerman, personally warn General Marshall.
Captain Johann Ranneft, the Dutch naval attaché in Washington, who was awarded the Legion of Merit for his services to America, recorded revealing details in his diary. On December 2nd, he visited the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Ranneft inquired about the Pacific. An American officer, pointing to a wall map, said, "This is the Japanese Task Force proceeding East." It was a spot midway between Japan and Hawaii. On December 6th, Ranneft returned and asked where the Japanese carriers were. He was shown a position on the map about 300-400 miles northwest of Pearl Harbor. Ranneft wrote: "I ask what is the meaning of these carriers at this location; whereupon I receive the answer that it is probably in connection with Japanese reports of eventual American action.... I myself do not think about it because I believe that everyone in Honolulu is 100 percent on the alert, just like everyone here at O.N.I."
On November 29th, Secretary of State Cordell Hull secretly met with freelance newspaper writer Joseph Leib. Leib had formerly held several posts in the Roosevelt administration. Hull knew him and felt he was one newsman he could trust. The secretary of state handed him copies of some of the Tokyo intercepts concerning Pearl Harbor. He said the Japanese were planning to strike the base and that FDR planned to let it happen. Hull made Leib pledge to keep his name out of it, but hoped he could blow the story sky-high in the newspapers.
Leib ran to the office of his friend Lyle Wilson, the Washington bureau chief of United Press. While keeping his pledge to Hull, he told Wilson the details and showed him the intercepts. Wilson replied that the story was ludicrous and refused to run it. Through connections, Leib managed to get a hurried version onto UP's foreign cable, but only one newspaper carried any part of it.
After Pearl Harbor, Lyle Wilson called Leib to his office. He handed him a copy of FDR's just-released "day of infamy" speech. The two men wept. Leib recounted his story in the History Channel documentary, "Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor."
The foregoing represents just a sampling of evidence that Washington knew in advance of the Pearl Harbor attack. For additional evidences, see Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian John Toland, and Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett.* So certain was the data that, at a private press briefing in November 1941, General George Marshall confidently predicted that a Japanese-American war would break out during the "first ten days of December."
However, none of this information was passed to our commanders in Hawaii, Kimmel and Short, with the exception of Ambassador Grew's January warning, a copy of which reached Kimmel on February 1st. To allay any concerns, Lieutenant Commander McCollum — who originated the plan to incite Japan to war — wrote Kimmel: "Naval Intelligence places no credence in these rumors. Furthermore, based on known data regarding the present disposition and deployment of Japanese naval and army forces, no move against Pearl Harbor appears imminent or planned for in the foreseeable future."
Sitting Ducks
To ensure a successful Japanese attack — one that would enrage America into joining the war — it was vital to keep Kimmel and Short out of the intelligence loop. However, Washington did far more than this to facilitate the Japanese assault.
On November 25th, approximately one hour after the Japanese attack force left port for Hawaii, the U.S. Navy issued an order forbidding U.S. and Allied shipping to travel via the North Pacific. All transpacific shipping was rerouted through the South Pacific. This order was even applied to Russian ships docked on the American west coast. The purpose is easy to fathom. If any commercial ship accidentally stumbled on the Japanese task force, it might alert Pearl Harbor. As Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner, the Navy's War Plans officer in 1941, frankly stated: "We were prepared to divert traffic when we believed war was imminent. We sent the traffic down via the Torres Strait, so that the track of the Japanese task force would be clear of any traffic."
The Hawaiian commanders have traditionally been censured for failing to detect the approaching Japanese carriers. What goes unsaid is that Washington denied them the means to do so. An army marching overland toward a target is easily spotted. But Hawaii is in the middle of the ocean. Its approaches are limitless and uninhabited. During the week before December 7th, naval aircraft searched more than two million square miles of the Pacific — but never saw the Japanese force. This is because Kimmel and Short had only enough planes to survey one-third of the 360-degree arc around them, and intelligence had advised (incorrectly) that they should concentrate on the Southwest.
Radar, too, was insufficient. There were not enough trained surveillance pilots. Many of the reconnaissance craft were old and suffered from a lack of spare parts. The commanders' repeated requests to Washington for additional patrol planes were turned down. Rear Admiral Edward T. Layton, who served at Pearl Harbor, summed it up in his book And I Was There: "There was never any hint in any intelligence received by the local command of any Japanese threat to Hawaii. Our air defenses were stripped on orders from the army chief himself. Of the twelve B-17s on the island, only six could be kept in the air by cannibalizing the others for spare parts."
The Navy has traditionally followed the rule that, when international relations are critical, the fleet puts to sea. That is exactly what Admiral Kimmel did. Aware that U.S.-Japanese relations were deteriorating, he sent 46 warships safely into the North Pacific in late November 1941 — without notifying Washington. He even ordered the fleet to conduct a mock air raid on Pearl Harbor, clairvoyantly selecting the same launch site Admiral Yamamoto chose two weeks later.
When the White House learned of Kimmel's move it countermanded his orders and ordered all ships returned to dock, using the dubious excuse that Kimmel's action might provoke the Japanese. Washington knew that if the two fleets met at sea, and engaged each other, there might be questions about who fired the first shot.
Kimmel did not give up, however. With the exercise canceled, his carrier chief, Vice Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, issued plans for a 25-ship task force to guard against an "enemy air and submarine attack" on Pearl Harbor. The plan never went into effect. On November 26th, Admiral Stark, Washington's Chief of Naval Operations, ordered Halsey to use his carriers to transport fighter planes to Wake and Midway islands — further depleting Pearl Harbor's air defenses.
It was clear, of course, that once disaster struck Pearl Harbor, there would be demands for accountability. Washington seemed to artfully take this into account by sending an ambiguous "war warning" to Kimmel, and a similar one to Short, on November 27th. This has been used for years by Washington apologists to allege that the commanders should have been ready for the Japanese.
Indeed, the message began conspicuously: "This dispatch is to be considered a war warning." But it went on to state: "The number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organizations of naval task forces indicates an amphibious expedition against the Philippines, Thai or Kra Peninsula, or possibly Borneo." None of these areas was closer than 5,000 miles to Hawaii! No threat to Pearl Harbor was hinted at. It ended with the words: "Continental districts, Guam, Samoa take measures against sabotage." The message further stated that "measures should be carried out so as not repeat not to alarm civil population." Both commanders reported the actions taken to Washington. Short followed through with sabotage precautions, bunching his planes together (which hinders saboteurs but makes ideal targets for bombers), and Kimmel stepped up air surveillance and sub searches. If their response to the "war warning" was insufficient, Washington said nothing. The next day, a follow-up message from Marshall's adjutant general to Short warned only: "Initiate forthwith all additional measures necessary to provide for protection of your establishments, property, and equipment against sabotage, protection of your personnel against subversive propaganda and protection of all activities against espionage."
Thus things stood as Japan prepared to strike. Using the Purple code, Tokyo sent a formal statement to its Washington ambassadors. It was to be conveyed to the American Secretary of State on Sunday, December 7th. The statement terminated relations and was tantamount to a declaration of war. On December 6th, in Washington, the War and Navy departments had already decrypted the first 13 parts of this 14-part message. Although the final passage officially severing ties had not yet come through, the fiery wording made its meaning obvious. Later that day, when Lieutenant Lester Schulz delivered to President Roosevelt his copy of the intercept, Schulz heard FDR say to his advisor, Harry Hopkins, "This means war."
During subsequent Pearl Harbor investigations, both General Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, and Admiral Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, denied any recollection of where they had been on the evening of December 6th — despite Marshall's reputation for a photographic memory. But James G. Stahlman, a close friend of Navy Secretary Frank Knox, said Knox told him FDR convened a high-level meeting at the White House that evening. Knox, Marshall, Stark, and War Secretary Stimson attended. Indeed, with the nation on war's threshold, such a conference only made sense. That same evening, the Navy Department received a request from Stimson for a list of the whereabouts of all ships in the Pacific.
On the morning of December 7th, the final portion of Japan's lengthy message to the U.S. government was decoded. Tokyo added two special directives to its ambassadors. The first directive, which the message called "very important," was to deliver the statement at 1 p.m. The second directive ordered that the last copy of code, and the machine that went with it, be destroyed. The gravity of this was immediately recognized in the Navy Department: Japan had a long history of synchronizing attacks with breaks in relations; Sunday was an abnormal day to deliver diplomatic messages — but the best for trying to catch U.S. armed forces at low vigilance; and 1 p.m. in Washington was shortly after dawn in Hawaii!
Admiral Stark arrived at his office at 9:25 a.m. He was shown the message and the important delivery time. One junior officer pointed out the possibility of an attack on Hawaii; another urged that Kimmel be notified. But Stark refused; he did nothing all morning. Years later, he told the press that his conscience was clear concerning Pearl Harbor because all his actions had been dictated by a "higher authority." As Chief of Naval Operations, Stark had only one higher authority: Roosevelt.
In the War Department, where the 14-part statement had also been decoded, Colonel Rufus Bratton, head of the Army's Far Eastern section, discerned the message's significance. But the chief of intelligence told him nothing could be done until Marshall arrived. Bratton tried reaching Marshall at home, but was repeatedly told the general was out horseback riding. The horseback ride turned out to be a long one. When Bratton finally reached Marshall by phone and told him of the emergency, Marshall said he would come to the War Department. Marshall took 75 minutes to make the 10-minute drive. He didn't come to his office until 11:25 a.m. — an extremely late hour with the nation on the brink of war. He perused the Japanese message and was shown the delivery time. Every officer in Marshall's office agreed these indicated an attack in the Pacific at about 1 p.m. EST. The general finally agreed that Hawaii should be alerted, but time was running out.
Marshall had only to pick up his desk phone to reach Pearl Harbor on the transpacific line. Doing so would not have averted the attack, but at least our men would have been at their battle stations. Instead, the general wrote a dispatch. After it was encoded it went to the Washington office of Western Union. From there it was relayed to San Francisco. From San Francisco it was transmitted via RCA commercial radio to Honolulu. General Short received it six hours after the attack. Two hours later it reached Kimmel. One can imagine their exasperation on reading it.
Despite all the evidence accrued through Magic and other sources during the previous months, Marshall had never warned Hawaii. To historians — ignorant of that classified evidence — it would appear the general had tried to save Pearl Harbor, "but alas, too late." Similarly, FDR sent a last-minute plea for peace to Emperor Hirohito. Although written a week earlier, he did not send it until the evening of December 6th. It was to be delivered by Ambassador Grew, who would be unable to receive an audience with the emperor before December 8th. Thus the message could not conceivably have forestalled the attack — but posterity would think that FDR, too, had made "a valiant, last effort."
The Roberts Commission, assigned to investigate the Japanese attack, consisted of personal cronies of Roosevelt and Marshall. The Commission fully absolved Washington and declared that America was caught off guard due to "dereliction of duty" by Kimmel and Short. The wrath of America for these two was exceeded only by its wrath for Tokyo. To this day, many believe it was negligence by the Hawaii commanders that made the Pearl Harbor disaster possible.
* Though a major exposer of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy, Robert Stinnett is sympathetic regarding FDR's motives. He writes in his book: "As a veteran of the Pacific War, I felt a sense of outrage as I uncovered secrets that had been hidden from Americans for more than fifty years. But I understood the agonizing dilemma faced by President Roosevelt. He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom." In our view, a government that is allowed to operate in such fashion is a government that has embarked on a dangerous, slippery slope toward dictatorship. Nonetheless, Stinnett's position on FDR's motives makes his exposé of FDR's actions all the more compelling.
This article, slightly revised, originally appeared under the title "Pearl Harbor: The Facts Behind the Fiction" in the June 4, 2001 issue of The New American.
Photo at top: AP Images
Related articles:
Pearl Harbor: Motives Behind the Betrayal
Pearl Harbor: Scapegoating Kimmel and Short

THE ULTIMATE FAKE NEWS LIST

 The Ultimate "Fake News" List
THE ULTIMATE FAKE NEWS LIST 
 The mainstream media is the primary source of the most harmful, most inaccurate news ever
BY  Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
Isn’t it ironic how the mainstream media has the nerve to lecture everyone else 
about “fake news” when they are the primary source of fake news on a 
consistent basis stretching back years?
Fake news stories and fake narratives put out by the mainstream media have resulted in deaths, destruction and people’s lives being ruined.
RELATED: PETITION: DEFEND INDEPENDENT MEDIA FROM ‘FAKE NEWS’ ATTACKS
The most harmful fake news is routinely published by the mainstream media. They are the main progenitors of fake news.
– The fake news that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was involved in 9/11, dutifully regurgitated without question by the mainstream media, resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, thousands of dead and injured U.S. troops, and the destabilization of an entire continent.
– The fake news that the rebels in Syria were “moderates” who did not have jihadist sympathies and should be supported led to the destruction of Syria, Libya and the rise of ISIS.
– The fake news narrative that the media was balanced in its coverage of the presidential election was completely obliterated when Wikileaks emails revealed that countless mainstream media reporters were in bed with the Clinton campaign, feeding them debate questions beforehand and conspiring with Hillary’s staff to portray her in a positive light.
– The fake news that George Zimmerman was obsessed with Trayvon Martin’s race before the altercation that led to Martin’s death was accomplished by means of NBC deceptively editing an audio tape. This incident stoked racial tensions across the country and laid the groundwork for the violent ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement that was to follow.
– The fake news that produced the “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative, which was proven to be completely fraudulent, led to riots, violent attacks and looting in Ferguson, Missouri, as well as numerous other U.S. cities. Even after the rioting began, the mainstream media continued to legitimize the unrest. Fake news outlets continued to parrot the “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative even after it was proven false.
– The fake news that saw innumerable people accused of rape at college campuses across America, claims that were proven wrong, ruined people’s lives and perpetuated the myth (fake news) that one in five women are raped on college campuses.
– The fake news that George W. Bush served dishonorably during his time in the Air National Guard was broadcast by CBS News with the aid of fake documents. In circulating this fake news, CBS tried to influence the 2004 presidential election but only ended up crucifying their own credibility, leading to Dan Rather’s resignation six months later.
– The fake news that NBC anchor Brian Williams faced enemy fire while helicoptering into Iraq in 2003 was exposed when soldiers who were aboard the helicopter blew the whistle on his lies. Despite admittedly putting out fake news, Williams still has a career in broadcast journalism.
– The fake news narrative that Donald Trump somehow represents the next coming of Hitler has provoked a hysterical anti-Trump hate crime wave across America, with people and property being attacked on a routine basis. The same hysterical fake news narrative was also responsible for violence and riots at Trump events throughout the campaign cycle, as well as assassination attempts on Trump’s life.
– The fake news that Donald Trump had no chance whatsoever of winning the presidential election was proudly pushed by countless mainstream media outlets, with the Huffington Post even predicting that Hillary Clinton had a 98% chance of winning the presidency. When this fake news narrative was completely demolished on November 8, it swept away trust in political polling and the mainstream media to an even greater degree, prompting the backlash that you now see with the corporate press calling everyone else “fake news” when they are the real fake news.
FULL LIST OF FAKE NEWS OUTLETS
– The New York Times
– The Washington Post
– CNN
– NBC News
– MSNBC
– CBS News
– ABC News
– Salon.com
– The Huffington Post
– Rolling Stone
– BBC News
– Sky News
– Financial Times
– Politico
– New York Daily News
– L.A. Times
– USA Today
– US News & World Report
– CBC
– Gawker
– Newsweek
– Time
– Business Insider
– Daily Beast
– VICE
– Yahoo News
– Daily Kos
– Young Turks
– Slate
– NPR
– PBS
– Raw Story
– New Yorker
– Buzzfeed
– MoveOn
– Think Progress
– Media Matters
– Wonkette
– Center for American Progress
– Little Green Footballs
– The Economist
Below is a list of fake news reporters who colluded with the Clinton campaign to promote fake news.
This list is by no means exhaustive, and there are many reporters within these organizations who do not peddle fake news and have spoken out against the mainstream media’s effort to brand dissenting opinion as “fake news”.
For example, Matt Taibbi (no fan of Infowars), has called the Washington Post’s fake news blacklist “disgusting” and “shameful”.
Glenn Greenwald, who has worked with several of the organizations on this list in the past, also completely eviscerated the credibility of the “fake news list” being used by the Washington Post.
The entire “fake news” narrative being pushed by the mainstream media has nothing whatsoever to do with concerns over people being misled.
If that were the case, the mainstream media itself would stop habitually lying to the American people and it’s trustworthiness wouldn’t be in the toilet.
The whole “fake news” narrative is clearly part of a dirty tricks campaign to pressure governments, Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other tech giants to censor information that is inconvenient to the establishment, for which the mainstream media serves as a mouthpiece.
We are competing with the mainstream media and they’re not happy about dissident voices challenging their monopoly on reality. That’s why they’re forced to resort to underhanded and deceptive means through which to silence their ideological opposition.
By circulating this article and this fake news list, we are not calling for these outlets to be censored, we are simply drawing attention to the fact that the very same entities who cry “fake news” are the primary sources for the most damaging, harmful and woefully inaccurate fake news stories in the history of modern journalism.

 
 

MAX LUCADO'S HERESIES & ECUMENICAL CONFUSION

 max-lucado
MAX LUCADO'S HERESIES & ECUMENICAL CONFUSION 
BY DAVID CLOUD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
Enlarged December 8, 2016 (first published September 4, 1998)
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143,
fbns@wayoflife.org 
 
Max Lucado [pictured] is one of the most prominent and influential evangelical leaders on the scene today. His positive-oriented books and sermons are sold in most Christian bookstores, including the Southern Baptist LifeWay stores. He is a popular speaker at a wide range of conferences, including Promise Keepers, National Religious Broadcasters, and National Association of Evangelicals.
BAPTISM NECESSARY FOR SALVATION
Lucado is pastor of the Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio, Texas. In June 1997, I talked with Lucado on the phone as well as with Elder Doyle Jennings of the Oak Hills Church. Both stated that they believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, but they do not believe in “baptismal regeneration.”

Thus we see that they have added baptism to the grace of Christ for salvation. This is standard Church of Christ error, and it is a very serious matter for it constitutes a false gospel.

Lucado has never renounced Church of Christ heresy and has maintained a close relationship with Pepperdine University and Abeline Christian University, both staunch Church of Christ institutions. A Pepperdine spokesman told Dennis Costella, editor of
Foundation magazine, that Lucado has been featured seven times at Pepperdine lectureships (Foundation, March-April 2000). Costella was in a unique position to judge these things because he grew up in the Church of Christ and graduated from Pepperdine before repenting of Church of Christ heresies.
ETERNAL SECURITY NOT AN ISSUE
Elder Jennings said he does not accept the doctrine of eternal security, while Lucado said this doctrine is not an issue in the church and elders and people are free to accept it or reject it. This is very telling since a proper understanding of salvation results in eternal security for the believer. Those who believe a born again child of God can lose his salvation simply do not understand the gospel.

Consider the following biblical truths about salvation. These could be greatly enlarged.

1. Salvation cannot be lost because it is a free gift of God’s grace that cannot be mixed with works (Eph. 2:8-10; Tit. 3:3-8; Rom. 3:19-24; 4:4-6; 11:6). A gift means I receive something I do not earn; it refers to something that it absolutely free and unmerited. How can a gift be taken away? If it can be taken away, it ceases to be a gift!

2. Salvation cannot be lost because it is by imputation and substitution (2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 2:20; Heb. 9:10; Rom. 4:5). Salvation is an exchange. Christ takes the believing sinner’s place in condemnation, and the believer takes Christ’s place in righteousness. Christ imparts to the sinner something he does not have and does not deserve (righteousness). That is the meaning of the term “justification.” It means that the believing sinner is declared righteous on the basis of Christ’s atonement. How can such a thing be lost?

3. Salvation cannot be lost because it is an eternally new position in Christ. See Ephesians 1-3. The phrase “in Christ” is used 25 times. The theme of those chapters is the believer’s position in Christ. In contrast, Ephesians 4-6 describe the believer’s walk in this world. The term “walk” is used nine times in those chapters. This teaches us the important truth that salvation is a matter of position and practice, relationship and fellowship, union and communion, standing and state. The believer’s position and relationship with Christ is eternally secure the moment he is born again into God’s family, whereas his practice and fellowship change according to how he lives. The believer is a child of God forever though he might not be walking in sweet fellowship every day of his earthly sojourn. See Eph. 4:1, 30; 5:1, 3, 8, where this teaching is described.

4. The blessings of salvation cannot be lost because of the teaching of election. Election does not destroy human responsibility (2 Th. 2:10-13; also compare Acts 13:46 with Acts 13:48). But divine election does promise security for the believer (Rom. 8:28-39). Predestination is not God choosing only some to be saved; it is God choosing the destiny of those who are saved (Rom. 8:29). Election
guarantees glorification (Rom. 8:30) and promises that there will be no condemnation (Rom. 8:31-34; 1 Pet. 1:2-5).

5. Salvation cannot be lost because of the value of Christ’s blood (Rom. 3:24-25). The term “redeemed” refers to the price that was paid for our salvation. It describes the purchase of a slave and the setting free of that redeemed slave to serve the new loving Master. The term “propitiation” also refers to the price of salvation. It refers to the satisfaction of a debt or the price that is paid for the slave. 1 Corinthians 6:20 says we are bought with a price. 1 Peter 1:18-19 says the price was the blood of Christ, which is precious, meaning valuable. Romans 5:20 teaches that the price paid is much greater than the debt. If I can lose my salvation, it means that the price paid for it was not sufficient, that I must add something to it and if I do not add my part, I will be lost. Such a teaching greatly devalues the blood of Christ.

The doctrine of eternal security is the natural result of a right understanding of the gospel of salvation.
DOCTRINE NOT VERY IMPORTANT
In my phone conversation with Max Lucado and with Elder Jennings, I got the distinct impression that doctrine was not very important to them. After I hung up the phone from talking with Lucado, I wrote the following summary of my observations:

“Lucado said he represents a ‘movement of grace’ in the Churches of Christ, ‘a move away from legalism.’ I sense that we are seeing a movement away from the older rigid doctrinal positions of the various denominations by the younger men who have taken charge. I saw another example of this in a recent article in
Charisma magazine about the United Pentecostal Church. It said some of the younger men are not satisfied with the past legalism and are willing to modify some of the finer points of their doctrinal position for the sake of ecumenism. Even the cults are joining in this movement, represented by the Worldwide Church of God. These new leaders are ecumenical and make no great issue of doctrine. Finer points of doctrine are meaningless. That is why something as important as eternal security is a non-issue with them. IT IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY MORE DIFFICULT TO PINPOINT THE HERESY OF HERETICAL CHURCHES. THE EASY-GOING, DOCTRINALLY-GENERIC CHURCH IS BECOMING THE NORM” (David Cloud, June 9, 1997).
ECUMENISM
Lucado holds an unscriptural view of Christian unity that is helping to break down the walls of separation between truth and error and that is preparing the way for the building of a one-world apostate “church.”

Lucado helped organize an ecumenical alliance of pastors in his hometown, which had grown to more than 100 some years back. The pastors were learning to “put away differences” in order to deepen personal relationships. The alliance includes women pastors, charismatics, and others. Cindy Daniel, for example, is co-pastor with her husband of Expect a Miracle Church. Newman Dollar, pastor of City View Christian Fellowship, who, with Lucado, was one of the founders of this ecumenical fellowship, told the
San Antonio Express-News (Feb. 19, 2000) that he wants to see more pastors from Catholic churches participating.

Lucado was a signer of the deceptive “The Gift of Salvation” agreement between evangelicals and Catholics in November 1997. This declaration was also known as “Evangelicals and Catholics Together II.” We exposed the danger and error of this statement in the article “Evangelicals and Catholics Confusing the Gift of Salvation.” We observed that “The Gift of Salvation” is a bland and, in the ecumenical context, insufficient affirmation of the doctrine of biblical justification. In typical New Evangelical fashion, the evangelical authors and signers omitted many things that are necessary to properly delineate the true Bible Gospel from the false Roman Catholic one. For the most part, what they stated about justification is not inherently unscriptural; THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM LIES IN WHAT THEY FAILED TO STATE. This, of course, is the root error of New Evangelicalism.

Lucado’s unscriptural view of unity was also evident when he spoke at the 1996 Promise Keepers Clergy Conference in Atlanta, Georgia. According to Promise Keeper leader Dale Schlafer, priests, bishops and pastors were present from every denomination in America. In fact, Promise Keepers had a Roman Catholic director for a couple of years, and Catholic priests have spoken at Promise Keepers events.

Lucado’s message at the Clergy Conference dealt with “Denominational Harmony: From Bondage to Freedom.” Lucado said, “I submit myself to the Word and there are core beliefs. However, for too long we have allowed our differences to divide us instead of our agreements to unite us.” He urged the men to subscribe to the premise, “In essentials unity--in non-essentials charity.”

The principle “in essentials unity--in non-essentials charity” is a smokescreen for disobedience to God’s Word. While not every teaching of Scripture is of equal importance, the Bible does not divide doctrine into essential and non-essential. Timothy’s job in Ephesus was to make certain that NO OTHER DOCTRINE be allowed (1 Timothy 1:3). There is no hint here that some portions of apostolic truth are “non-essential.” Paul labored to preach THE WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD (Acts 20:27). The man who strives to be faithful to every part of New Testament truth will find it impossible to be comfortable in an ecumenical environment. As one wise man observed, “You will have a limited fellowship, or you will have a limited message.”

Lucado had the 40,000 men shout the names of their denominations all together. The result was confusion, of course. Lucado then asked the crowd to state who was the Messiah. The ensuing response, “Jesus,” was heard plainly. The evident goal of this clever little exercise was to demonstrate the beauty and simplicity of ecumenical unity.

In Atlanta, Lucado claimed that “the sin of disunity causes people to go to hell!”

He then stated: “The step to unity is acceptance and no longer to speak evil of one another. WOULD IT NOT BE WONDERFUL NOT TO BE KNOWN AS EITHER PROTESTANT OR CATHOLIC? This is a God-sized dream and no one in our generation has ever seen the Church united.”

This is not a God-sized dream; it is the vision of the religious Harlot that John recorded in Revelation 17. Promise Keepers is confused about the church. The true church is not composed of all of the alleged Christian denominations. The focus on the New Testament Scriptures is upon the church as a local body of baptized believers organized according to the apostolic pattern for the fulfillment of the Great Commission. This is the church that is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). To define the “church” as the denominations of our day and to call for this hodgepodge of doctrinal and moral error “to stand together” is utter confusion. The denominations today are more akin to the Harlot of Revelation 17 than to the church of Jesus Christ.

According to Ralph Colas’s eyewitness report of the 1996 Promise Keepers Clergy Conference, “LUCADO THEN PLEAD THAT EVERY CLERGYMAN WHO HAD EVER SPOKEN AGAINST ANOTHER GROUP OR DENOMINATION, FIND A MEMBER OF THAT GROUP AND APOLOGIZE. Contemporary Christian singer Steve Green then belted out repeatedly ‘Let the Walls Come Down.’ The 40,000 ministers shouted, whistled, clapped, and cheered as they worked to a higher and higher pitch of emotion” (
An Eyewitness Report on the 1996 Clergy Conference for Men, Atlanta, Georgia, February 13-15, 1996).

We are to apologize for warning people of false gospels and false baptisms and false spirits and false Christs and false sacraments and false mediators and false views of the church and false views of Scripture? We are to apologize for warning of sin and worldliness and compromise? I have spoken against many Christian groups and denominations, because God commands me to preach the truth AND to expose error (2 Timothy 4:1-6). I refuse to apologize for striving to obey God. By God’s grace I am going to keep on exposing error until the Lord takes me to Glory. And by God’s grace I am going to name names and be specific about the error and the sin so that those who have an ear will be able to heed the warning.

In his book
In the Grip of Grace, Lucado thanks God for the Pentecostals, Anglicans, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics.

Lucado is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He would have God’s people ignore false teaching for the sake of unity, and that is nowhere taught in Scripture. We are to mark and avoid false teachers (Rom. 16:17) and avoid those who “have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof” (2 Tim. 3:5). We are to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), and it is impossible to earnestly contend for sound doctrine and to strive for ecumenical unity at the same time. Paul didn’t seek unity with heretics; he reproved them sharply (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:35-36; Gal. 5:7-10; Col 2:8).
CONTEMPLATIVE MYSTICISM
Lucado gave his support to contemplative prayer with the publication of Cure for the Common Life. In this dangerous book he promotes the Buddhist-Catholic monk Thomas Merton who taught panentheism and universalism.
Merton was “a strong builder of bridges between East and West” (Twentieth-Century Mystics, p. 39). The Yoga Journal made the following observation:
“Merton had encountered Zen Buddhism, Sufism, Taoism and Vedanta [Hinduism] many years prior to his Asian journey. MERTON WAS ABLE TO UNCOVER THE STREAM WHERE THE WISDOM OF EAST AND WEST MERGE AND FLOW TOGETHER, BEYOND DOGMA, IN THE DEPTHS OF INNER EXPERIENCE. ... Merton embraced the spiritual philosophies of the East and integrated this wisdom into [his] own life through direct practice” (Yoga Journal, Jan.-Feb. 1999, quoted from the Lighthouse Trails web site).
Merton was a student of Zen master D.T. Suzuki and Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh. The titles of Merton’s books include
Zen and the Birds of the Appetite and Mystics and the Zen Masters. Merton said: “I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity. The future of Zen is in the West. I intend to become as good a Buddhist as I can” (David Steindl-Rast, “Recollection of Thomas Merton’s Last Days in the West,” Monastic Studies, 7:10, 1969, http://www.gratefulness.org/readings/dsr_merton_recol2.htm).
Merton adopted the heresy that within every man is a pure spark of divine illumination and that men can know God through a variety of paths:
“At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusion, a point of pure truth, a point or spark which belongs entirely to God. It is like a pure diamond blazing with the invisible light of heaven. It is in everybody. I have no program for saying this. It is only given, but the gate of heaven is everywhere” (Soul Searching: The Journey of Thomas Merton, 2007, DVD).
Merton said that monks of all religions are “brothers” and are “already one.” At an interfaith meeting in Calcutta, India, in 1968, sponsored by the Temple of Understanding, Merton said:
“I came with the notion of perhaps saying something for monks and to monks of all religions because I am supposed to be a monk. ... My dear brothers, WE ARE ALREADY ONE. BUT WE IMAGINE THAT WE ARE NOT. And what we have to recover is our original unity. What we have to be is what we are” (“Thomas Merton’s View of Monasticism,” a talk delivered at Calcutta, October 1968, The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton, 1975 edition, appendix III, p. 308).
Merton used the terms God, Krishna, and Tao interchangeably.

In 2009 I visited the Abbey of Gethsemani in Kentucky, where Merton lived and where he is buried. Many books were on display that promote interfaith unity. These include
Zen Keys by Thich Nhat Hanh, Bhagavad Gita (Hindu scriptures), Buddhists Talk about Jesus and Christians Talk about Buddha, Meeting Islam: A Guide for Christians, and Jesus in the World’s Faiths.

For Lucado to quote Merton and to refer to him in a positive way is inexcusable and is evidence that he has made a total commitment to contemplative mysticism, regardless of what lame excuses he might make.

Lucado also quotes New Age mystic Martin Buber’s
The Way of Man. Lucado promotes Buber’s New Age heresy that every man has a “divine spark.” He further quotes Catholic “saint” Thomas Aquinas, Eugene Peterson, and Richard Foster, the most prominent popularizer of Catholic mysticism today.

Lucado tries to package Catholic contemplative mysticism as an innocent and Scriptural evangelical practice. He even says it is not “mystical,” but this is false as we have proven in our free eBook
Evangelicals and Contemplative Mysticism.
May God help us have the courage in these evil hours to honor and obey Him rather than man, to refuse to follow the crowd that refuses to follow the Bible.

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).