World War II … something not clear

[GLASGOWOODS]

You underestimate Philby,at the time he was working at the highest level in British Intelligence he was a full Colonel in the KGB. The Russians certainly had a very good source at high level in Japan and it is possible, (a long shot I agree) that Philby was told about PH.

 

What does seem unlikely and I concede this, is would the Russians instruct Philby to tell Churchill to tell Roosevelt? this would have lead to pre emptive action by the US and a possible stall to an outbreak of war. Against Russian interests ? Yes but equally against UK interests. So unlikely.

 

I bring your attention my comment on Churchills actions on the day of the attack, which took place at about 9pm GMT. Two days before, Churchill, at very short notice, had invited the US Ambassador to dinner with a number of other US officials, he had instructed his staff to set up a radio in the dining room, something he had never done before. As the Jap attack was reported the Americans heard it.

 

Churchill could have been told of the likelihood of the attack from the Singapore listening station. He could equally want the US reps there if Singapore was attacked, as it happened PH was the target.

 

The above was reported by several sources including Churchills private physician.

 

The incident begs the questions,

 

Why the dinner at short notice?

 

There were regular interactions between the UK Government and the US Embassy negating the need for such a short notice arrangement.

 

Why the Radio?

 

It had never been in the room before, why now?

 

It may well be that Philby was not the source and the UK/Singapore codebreakers were, it may be that there was no information and it was all coincidence.

 

I do not share your confidence that Churchill did not know. I don't know, but I suspend my judgement and hope to learn more if and when the closed government files are opened in 2021.

 

 

 

 

You can watch documentary about Philby tonight 9pm on yesterday channel.

[Celia Paul]

The radar that the US had at that time was extremely basic. Blips were spotted on the screen and thought to be a flight of inbound air force bombers from the mainland which were expected that day

 

In hindsight a squadron or a few fighter planes could have been sent from Hickham Field to check the blips out but as I said before it was a Sunday morning, everyone from HQ on down was out and the Japs were still in Washington talking to US officials.

 

In hindsight also the Anglo-Saxon belief that two sides never stab each other in the back while talks between them are in progress was belied by the little slant eyed men on the other side of the world that day.

 

---------- Post added 24-07-2015 at 16:50 ----------

 

The history of war is full of unexpected surprises. Hitler's surprise attack and invasion of Russia. The German armoured thrust through the Ardennes forest in 1940 when it was believed by the French and British that the terrain was impassable for tanks. The Japanese Army's invasion of Malaya from the north when it was believed that Jap soldiers wouldn't have been able to see in the jungle at night and therefore any attempt at invasion would have to come from the South China Sea either landing on Singapore Island or Kota Bahru just across the causeway

 

Lot of ifs buts blah blah, what about blaming the ships cat.

 

---------- Post added 24-07-2015 at 19:05 ----------

 

Thanks for proving my point about how easy it is to wise with the power hindsight. Out of the examples that you gave, they all happened after the Pearl Harbour attack - apart from the Bismark.

 

The sinking of the Bismark is an interesting case because the RN were still using their pre-WW2 tactics of scouting and damaging the enemy with planes and relying upon the rest of the surface fleet to sink the enemy ships.

Didn't do bad for antiquated biplanes against Bismark.

I didn't prove your point at all I made the inference that Battleships could defend themselves in pearl harbour look as silly as it was.

[Harleyman]

Lot of ifs buts blah blah, what about blaming the ships cat.

 

---------- Post added 24-07-2015 at 19:05 ----------

 

Didn't do bad for antiquated biplanes against Bismark.

I didn't prove your point at all I made the inference that Battleships could defend themselves in pearl harbour look as silly as it was.

 

The sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse ended the battleship era since it was a very hard and sad lesson learned that such ships without air cover were highly vulnerable to attack by hostile aircraft

 

It's a pity you weren't around at that time though. You could have gone down in history as the greatest saviour of human life since Jesus Christ

[tzijlstra]

The sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse ended the battleship era since it was a very hard and sad lesson learned that such ships without air cover were highly vulnerable to attack by hostile aircraft

 

It wasn't the only reason they failed though. Due to their sheer scale they were incredibly expensive but during WW2 it became increasingly clear that just having massive guns was not actually beneficial. Battlecruisers and heavy cruisers, with smaller guns, could fire more rapidly and often more accurately, perhaps not as far, but what use is shooting 30 kilometres away when you can't hit anything smaller than a square mile at that range. Add to that the rise of torpedo warfare and the ill maneuverability of battleships and all of a sudden there was simply no reason to carry on with the heavier/thicker/hitting harder philosophy.

 

Finally the rise in understanding of aerodynamics made carriers incredibly feasible, and sea bombers can bomb 300 kilometres away and be accurate, so guns became even more redundant.

 

This is the reason that modern combat ships, apart from AA guns in the shape of a goalgetter or similar, have no big artillery guns at all anymore.

[Harleyman]

It wasn't the only reason they failed though. Due to their sheer scale they were incredibly expensive but during WW2 it became increasingly clear that just having massive guns was not actually beneficial. Battlecruisers and heavy cruisers, with smaller guns, could fire more rapidly and often more accurately, perhaps not as far, but what use is shooting 30 kilometres away when you can't hit anything smaller than a square mile at that range. Add to that the rise of torpedo warfare and the ill maneuverability of battleships and all of a sudden there was simply no reason to carry on with the heavier/thicker/hitting harder philosophy.

 

Finally the rise in understanding of aerodynamics made carriers incredibly feasible, and sea bombers can bomb 300 kilometres away and be accurate, so guns became even more redundant.

 

This is the reason that modern combat ships, apart from AA guns in the shape of a goalgetter or similar, have no big artillery guns at all anymore.

 

 

replaced by missiles

[Celia Paul]

The sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse ended the battleship era since it was a very hard and sad lesson learned that such ships without air cover were highly vulnerable to attack by hostile aircraft

 

It's a pity you weren't around at that time though. You could have gone down in history as the greatest saviour of human life since Jesus Christ

Sarcasm is so sad when you've lost the point.

The Pearl Harbour debacle was down to incompetence and bad planning, if not it was a ply to draw in the Japs.