• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pearl Harbor and JN-25B - questions

I did a google for hits on Churchill, Roosevelt, November, 26, 1941, to see what might materialize.

It would appear the one telegram was certainly sent from Churchill to Roosevelt at about 3 AM (London). It apparently has been found and the contents (such as noted on that website article) seems innocuous. The article indicated that it was put forward that a later telegram was sent that day but has never been found.

The issue appears to be that one of the proponents of the idea that Churchill conspired with Roosevelt (i.e. Churchill told Roosevelt but they kept it quiet) or that Churchill never told Roosevelt, was supposedly involved with breaking JN-25 back in 1939. It was refered to as the Japanese naval cypher.

I would point out that supposedly JN-25b went into force around December 1940 and remained in force until nearly June 1942. While participating in the solution of an earlier version (circa 1939) of JN-25 would provide clues that would assist in solving a new edition (circa 1940), it is a bit of a stretch to assume that JN-25b had been so thoroughly broken that the British would know all the details of the Pearl Harbor attack. The proponent's knowledge being limited to the previous edition (1939) means that he is only able to speculate that IF the code was thoroughly broken (as in 1939, a fact I am not going to research) such a plan to attack Pearl Harbor might have been solved.

I would note that TCB says the US and UK code breakers in the Pacific worked together (as best I assume as one may) and assisted each other. Assuming that was true, one has to then assume that the UK chose to conceal its progress in solving JN-25b and do so in a comprehensive and utterly distrustful way. There was no way to predict that a Pearl Harbor attack message would be intercepted and reduced to plaintext by only the UK, so the basis for concealing their progress is lacking.

Note that the deception (that JN-25b had been effectively solved) would have to extend past the beginning of the war, at least until a new edition came into force, because a sudden release of a whole host of heretofore unknown code group meanings would have, at a minimum, aroused suspicions among the US code breakers who themselves know how hard it was to solve codes.
 
Not likely at all says I. The UK was smelling Hitler at their door in 1939. Churchill was most egregiously worried about him. He had to know that the US was his greatest and most powerful ally. The notion that he would have instructed his cryptographers to sandbag their US counterparts out of some institutional or national pride is utter nonsense - and quite frankly a bit of an insult to the long and proud history the US and UK share in military cooperation and intelligence.
 
It makes no sense. It has lots of negative ramafications. It would actually be rather hard to conceal. But some folks still put forward speculations based on assumptions that may not have any validity to the question at hand.

Looking back, I see my wording was flaky. :o
 
I did a google for hits on Churchill, Roosevelt, November, 26, 1941, to see what might materialize.

Cooool, the discovery process. :D

It would appear the one telegram was certainly sent from Churchill to Roosevelt at about 3 AM (London). It apparently has been found and the contents (such as noted on that website article) seems innocuous. The article indicated that it was put forward that a later telegram was sent that day but has never been found.

That's about it - I'm still trying to iron out the (alleged) details precisely, but I think the 'thin diet for Chiang-Kai-Shek telegram was sent to urge no more concessions to the Japanese, late that night, and was followed in the log by a 3am repeat - Layton's book has a great section on this, and seemed to hint that the second was a cover for transmission of a whole different message we've never seen. It likely involved news of Japanese war plans, as FDR's apparent response - a message to Churchill the next day, said "negotiations off. All services expect action within two weeks."

The issue appears to be that one of the proponents of the idea that Churchill conspired with Roosevelt (i.e. Churchill told Roosevelt but they kept it quiet) or that Churchill never told Roosevelt, was supposedly involved with breaking JN-25 back in 1939. It was refered to as the Japanese naval cypher.

Perhaps Eric Nave, who worked with Rusbridger on that one book. They are big on this telegram story, and I find their thesis likely wrong in putting so much on Churchill, but it's interesting, and I don't know. I should look at their case for UK penetration of JN-25, since I already consider it possible.

I would point out that supposedly JN-25b went into force around December 1940 and remained in force until nearly June 1942. While participating in the solution of an earlier version (circa 1939) of JN-25 would provide clues that would assist in solving a new edition (circa 1940), it is a bit of a stretch to assume that JN-25b had been so thoroughly broken that the British would know all the details of the Pearl Harbor attack. The proponent's knowledge being limited to the previous edition (1939) means that he is only able to speculate that IF the code was thoroughly broken (as in 1939, a fact I am not going to research) such a plan to attack Pearl Harbor might have been solved.

Good point right off the bat, If he's basing JN-25B readability based on his own reading of JN-25A, that's a scam. That's IF. 1939 and 1941 are two different ballgames.

Great post, very helpful. :D
 
Sorry, you just gave too many building blocks to resist.

Not likely at all says I. The UK was smelling Hitler at their door in 1939. Churchill was most egregiously worried about him. He had to know that the US was his greatest and most powerful ally.

Potential ally. I mean real, but only as real as a friend could be from the sidelines when you're getting your ass whooped.

If only there was a way to get the US into the war, and even fired up about it...

The notion that he would have instructed his cryptographers to sandbag their US counterparts out of some institutional or national pride is utter nonsense -

Most likely. That's not a very good reason, especially when you have such a big war going, frivolous shows of pride become a luxury you can only afford so much of.

How about for self-interest, like if you had had FDR repeatedly say he couldn't join the fight without being attacked first, and you felt that witholding intel could contribute to a US vulnerability to a surprise attack? I'm not saying that's what happened, but would that be a good reason?

and quite frankly a bit of an insult to the long and proud history the US and UK share in military cooperation and intelligence.

Yes, whatever hitches there may be, the Anglo-American alliance was again strong, after a bitter inter-war spell, once the surprise attack was carried out, thanks to whatever compiled fates. We were already joined at the head (FDR-Churchill), and 12/7 and US entry to the war made us essentially merged in body as well.

Again, the point is not that the conspiracy theories are true, but that the concept does too make sense, until it's misconstrued and made to look silly.
 
Sorry, you just gave too many building blocks to resist.



Potential ally. I mean real, but only as real as a friend could be from the sidelines when you're getting your ass whooped.

If only there was a way to get the US into the war, and even fired up about it...



Most likely. That's not a very good reason, especially when you have such a big war going, frivolous shows of pride become a luxury you can only afford so much of.

How about for self-interest, like if you had had FDR repeatedly say he couldn't join the fight without being attacked first, and you felt that witholding intel could contribute to a US vulnerability to a surprise attack? I'm not saying that's what happened, but would that be a good reason?



Yes, whatever hitches there may be, the Anglo-American alliance was again strong, after a bitter inter-war spell, once the surprise attack was carried out, thanks to whatever compiled fates. We were already joined at the head (FDR-Churchill), and 12/7 and US entry to the war made us essentially merged in body as well.

Again, the point is not that the conspiracy theories are true, but that the concept does too make sense, until it's misconstrued and made to look silly.

Only a potential ally? You don't think the shiploads of ammunition arriving from the US, convoyed by USN ships were of some aid to Britain?

So why not posit a British false flag attack on the Reuben James? True, the Germans admitted the attack, but al-Quaeda repeatedly admitting they did 9-11 hasn't seemed to make a dent in the CTs conclusions.
 
Yes, whatever hitches there may be, the Anglo-American alliance was again strong, after a bitter inter-war spell, once the surprise attack was carried out, thanks to whatever compiled fates. We were already joined at the head (FDR-Churchill), and 12/7 and US entry to the war made us essentially merged in body as well.


It should be pointed out that the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor in no way guaranteed the U.S. would also go to war against Germany. It was entirely possible the U.S. would have fought Japan and still remained neutral vis-a-vis Germany. As it turned out, Germany's declaration of war against the U.S. on Dec. 11th ended that possibility.
 
Well, I think that if Churchill knew of the Pearl Harbor attack plans, he would have communicated that to Roosevelt and then the US could plan to counter the surprise attack (and it was intended to be a surprise, just that it was supposed to be after the break off in negotiations which was the Japanese felt to be effectively 'a declaration of war'). Then if it came out that England had discovered the existence of the attack and warned the US, the US public might feel that joining the war against Germany might be a suitable reward to assist 'our faithful friend'.
 
Only a potential ally? You don't think the shiploads of ammunition arriving from the US, convoyed by USN ships were of some aid to Britain?

Same facts and ideas, different words. I only meant 'from the sidelines' in the sense of not involved directly in war-type stuff. Within the confines of what FDR could do without major political fallout, the alliance was about as strong as it could be. The issue at hand is the degree of constraint and how important that was considered to overcome. We could debate the exact degree and kind of resistance to war, but we all know it was pretty strong and Pearl Harbor wound up putting it pretty much in reverse.

So why not posit a British false flag attack on the Reuben James? True, the Germans admitted the attack, but al-Quaeda repeatedly admitting they did 9-11 hasn't seemed to make a dent in the CTs conclusions.

If there was any kind of evidence to consider I'd consider it, but like you say, the Germans fessed up anyway, as did the Japanese at PH. Given the kind of thinking I'm already considering, some false-flag stuff would indeed make sense, but would be risky; it looks better if the flag is undeniably true. While some people can then debate about the circumstances of that attack, most are at the reptilian cortex level of so what? They hit us, we hit them harder. Unk.
 
It should be pointed out that the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor in no way guaranteed the U.S. would also go to war against Germany. It was entirely possible the U.S. would have fought Japan and still remained neutral vis-a-vis Germany. As it turned out, Germany's declaration of war against the U.S. on Dec. 11th ended that possibility.

That is a good point. It wouldn't be blind fate, they'd be able to look at the facts and make good guesses, but it wasn't certain. The Axis folks made a habit even of being unpredictable.

However, the UK would still benefit in that the US would be helping guard their rear supply lines from Asia, freeing them up to focus more on their struggles in Europe. Given the possibilities, it looks like a win/win big situation.

Well, I think that if Churchill knew of the Pearl Harbor attack plans, he would have communicated that to Roosevelt and then the US could plan to counter the surprise attack (and it was intended to be a surprise, just that it was supposed to be after the break off in negotiations which was the Japanese felt to be effectively 'a declaration of war'). Then if it came out that England had discovered the existence of the attack and warned the US, the US public might feel that joining the war against Germany might be a suitable reward to assist 'our faithful friend'.

I tend to agree but maybe in a different way. For Churchill to think he could just 'trick' the US into his war would be pretty crazy. You think FDR would make a very good ally if he'd been hoodwinked into it? There's a lot of high-level psychology stuff here we can't know, but we can think about it and bounce ideas.

Now if I were Churchill - bizarro Churchill from cynical land - and wanted to trick the US (not FDR, but his country) into war, I might give Roosevelt a chance to decide on his own if he's got what it takes. Channel all my relevant intel up to me thru some unknown elite unit with JN-25 pierced and no sharing agreements - it moves up only and not sideways to their American counterparts. Then I'd pass it sideways to bizarro cynical FDR and leave it in his hands to pass it back down his chain or not. When a surprise attack happens right where and when I gave him a chance to guard, I know I've got a strong ally in for the long haul and the Japanese will be ground to a powder. I might even write about my elation, in some Bizarro-world memoir.
 
Same facts and ideas, different words. I only meant 'from the sidelines' in the sense of not involved directly in war-type stuff. Within the confines of what FDR could do without major political fallout, the alliance was about as strong as it could be. The issue at hand is the degree of constraint and how important that was considered to overcome. We could debate the exact degree and kind of resistance to war, but we all know it was pretty strong and Pearl Harbor wound up putting it pretty much in reverse.

You don't consider convoy duty to be "war-type stuff"? Interesting. The Germans evidently thought it was.
 
I can't recall right at this moment, but was any traffic between Japan and Germany intercepted? If Germany and Japan had planned to forge an alliance prior to 7 DEC 1941, is there any evidence that anyone in the German high command was aware of Pearl Harbor prior to its execution? I can see the logic to both angles. If yes, one wants to keep its allies (or potential allies) appraised of a planned attack that could spur a very powerful mutual adversary into action. If no, the obvious reason of OPSEC comes to mind. Anyone with a better memory than me know anything?
 
You don't consider convoy duty to be "war-type stuff"? Interesting. The Germans evidently thought it was.

Ya got me, that's "war-type stuff." Neat little circle we're going in here. Do you know what your point is? You're drawing attention to the US being effectively at war with Germany, in context of this discussion of Pearl Harbor. Can you please elaborate on what the connection is here? Is it pointing towards 'FDR didn't need Pearl Harbor, since we were already fighting the Nazis?' Because you must know how that can only work on paper.
 
I can't recall right at this moment, but was any traffic between Japan and Germany intercepted?
Some of it for sure. Tokyo's dispatches to its Berlin Embassy were intercepted I'm sure, but I don't know details. This would be an interesting channel to follow for sure.

If Germany and Japan had planned to forge an alliance prior to 7 DEC 1941, is there any evidence that anyone in the German high command was aware of Pearl Harbor prior to its execution?
Well, of course they signed the tri-partite pact over a year before that, which is the point where Japan could be seen as a 'back-door' into the European war. I'm not certain, but I doubt they had any direct tactical alliance, sharing detailed moves, but anything with big political repercussions - I'd bet money some key Germans knew.

I can see the logic to both angles. If yes, one wants to keep its allies (or potential allies) appraised of a planned attack that could spur a very powerful mutual adversary into action. If no, the obvious reason of OPSEC comes to mind. Anyone with a better memory than me know anything?

Memory, nah, I'd have to look it up, but I think they would communicate these things, at least in outline form, and trust that the alliance is good enough your secret remains one. You want your allies informed so they can take advantage, and thus help you out.

And we all know why the same logic applies on the Allies side, right? Which means...

I dig that avatar.
 
Ya got me, that's "war-type stuff." Neat little circle we're going in here. Do you know what your point is? You're drawing attention to the US being effectively at war with Germany, in context of this discussion of Pearl Harbor. Can you please elaborate on what the connection is here? Is it pointing towards 'FDR didn't need Pearl Harbor, since we were already fighting the Nazis?' Because you must know how that can only work on paper.

You were saying that the US was only a "potential" ally of the UK. Now you seem to be moving the goalposts to "the US was not at total war with Germany".
The Reuben James sinking happened in October of 1941. Americans were pissed. I think (and mind you, this is simply opinion) that given a few more attacks on US flagged ships, the US would either have declared war on Germany, or Germany would have declared war on the US.
The Germans could not afford to allow the UK to be resupplied, and the US was not going to stop.
I don't think either FDR or Churchill needed Pearl Harbor to get the US into the war. Thus there was no motive to destroy (or allow to be destroyed) a significant fraction of the US ability to project force in the Pacific. You might want to bear in mind that the British Empire had assets in the Pacific as well.
 
When did the Nazis begin attempting infiltration of East Coast port facilities? Did it happen after Dec. 7, 1941? Hitler was no dummy, and Adm. Wilhelm Canaris was CERTAINLY no dummy. If I'm going to start tearing apart Europe looking for Lebensraum, I'm going to want to have hard on-the-ground intelligence on their large trading partner across the pond who sort of kicked our Teutonic arses back in the Great One. More specifically their naval activities and political readiness to go to war...
 
You were saying that the US was only a "potential" ally of the UK. Now you seem to be moving the goalposts to "the US was not at total war with Germany".

No, I never moved any goal posts. You just keep standing next to any vertical structure and insisting you're at the goal posts. Yeah, we were involved in embargoes, lend-lease, convoys, even active scouting of enemy ships for tips to British attack planes - the US public was not entirely aware of this let alone approving, but maybe 50/50 on it. Would war have come from this? My opinion is no, * but I don't mean to argue this here - I'm putting together a new thread to discuss the whole picture. Here it is. Here let's keep it closer to JN-25 questions and thoughts. :)

* ETA: This might have been able to legally justify a war and get enough support to do it okay. But IMO not nearly as well as Pearl Harbor did - not enough to whoop ass like we did and emerge on top and all that.
 
Last edited:
When did the Nazis begin attempting infiltration of East Coast port facilities? Did it happen after Dec. 7, 1941? Hitler was no dummy, and Adm. Wilhelm Canaris was CERTAINLY no dummy. If I'm going to start tearing apart Europe looking for Lebensraum, I'm going to want to have hard on-the-ground intelligence on their large trading partner across the pond who sort of kicked our Teutonic arses back in the Great One. More specifically their naval activities and political readiness to go to war...

Interesting... I don't know much about that issue myself, and since i'm not sure how that fits in here, not motivated to figure it out now. If it's worth bringing up again, maybe this is a good point to explore in that new thread. Or here, if codes and intel is where it's heading.
 
Really? Let's look at the thread. Originally, the US was only a potential ally because they were just watching from the sidelines.

Potential ally. I mean real, but only as real as a friend could be from the sidelines when you're getting your ass whooped.

If only there was a way to get the US into the war, and even fired up about it...

I pointed out that they were doing more than watching.
Only a potential ally? You don't think the shiploads of ammunition arriving from the US, convoyed by USN ships were of some aid to Britain?

So why not posit a British false flag attack on the Reuben James? True, the Germans admitted the attack, but al-Quaeda repeatedly admitting they did 9-11 hasn't seemed to make a dent in the CTs conclusions.

And the position becomes the US wasn't involved in "war-type stuff".

Same facts and ideas, different words. I only meant 'from the sidelines' in the sense of not involved directly in war-type stuff.

Except of course, the Reuben James sinking shows that they were directly involved in war-type stuff.
But apparently the US is still not really an ally, because "the public was not entirely aware".


No, I never moved any goal posts. You just keep standing next to any vertical structure and insisting you're at the goal posts. Yeah, we were involved in embargoes, lend-lease, convoys, even active scouting of enemy ships for tips to British attack planes - the US public was not entirely aware of this let alone approving, but maybe 50/50 on it. Would war have come from this? My opinion is no, * but I don't mean to argue this here - I'm putting together a new thread to discuss the whole picture. Here it is. Here let's keep it closer to JN-25 questions and thoughts. :)

* ETA: This might have been able to legally justify a war and get enough support to do it okay. But IMO not nearly as well as Pearl Harbor did - not enough to whoop ass like we did and emerge on top and all that.

But there haven't been any goalposts moved. Right.

The US and the UK were already allied before Pearl Harbor. Spin it however you wish.
 
Really? Let's look at the thread. Originally, the US was only a potential ally because they were just watching from the sidelines.

I pointed out that they were doing more than watching.

And the position becomes the US wasn't involved in "war-type stuff".

Except of course, the Reuben James sinking shows that they were directly involved in war-type stuff.
But apparently the US is still not really an ally, because "the public was not entirely aware".

But there haven't been any goalposts moved. Right.

The US and the UK were already allied before Pearl Harbor. Spin it however you wish.

You're being ridiculous and playing semantics. You don't have me, but enjoy pretending. Twice around is enough, welcome to unofficial ignore.
 

Back
Top Bottom