pearl harbor debate

8/12/2019 Pearl Harbor Debate

1/4

Michaela Keil 8:00am

Did Roosevelt Deliberately Withhold Information about Pear Harbor?

Robert A. Theobald

AUTHOR OF THE YES ARGUMENT

Roberta Wohlstetter

Pearl Harbor is one of the conspiracy theory touchstones in our country. Admittedly, the

Kennedy assignation or even the two towers is bigger, but this one is still pretty major. Did

President Roosevelt have prior knowledge that the Japanese were going to strike at Pearl

Harbor? Did he then withhold that information in order to spark Americas entry into WWII?

Author and historian Robert Theobald argues that yes, Roosevelt knew. Author and historian

Roberta Wohlstetter argues that, nowhile we had broken military code for Japan, they

werent being clear and the attack was therefore unpredictable.

Coming into reading about this, I have always liked to believe Roosevelt didnt know.

While I hold no delusions that people are shining beacons of perfection, I generally would like

to assume the best about someone. It just seems to me that Roosevelt would have better,

more convenient ways of getting into the war than one that could potentially blow up in his

face instead of his shipyard.

Theobald argues that President Roosevelt was aware of the Japanese plans to attack

Pearl Harbor, and deliberately withheld that information from commanding officers at the base

in order to stir an isolationist nation to war. His first point is American unreadyness for war. He


2/4

argues that Roosevelt saw France overcome; it convinced Roosevelt the United States must

fight beside Great Britainoralone, as the last democratic stronghold in Nazi world.

However, the country was completely unprepared to leave the nest. Therefore, Theobald

argues that only a cataclysmic happening would move Congress to enact a declaration of war

and unite the people behind the principles of it.

Therefore, Roosevelt began to scheme. The Tripartite Treaty meant that an attack

against Japan, Germany, or Italy was against all. So Roosevelt instituted a successful campaign

to correct the Nations military unpreparedness and proceeded to bug the crap out of both

Germany and Japan while making connections for war in case of an attack. He then lured the

Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor.

According to Theobald, the knowledge of the Japanese code, combined with knowledge

of history, would have made Pearl Harbor completely predictable to anyone listening. We had

their military transmissions, and the Japanese had a history of pretending to negotiate with a

country while setting up a sneak attack. Therefore, Roosevelt made the Hawaiian base more

appealing by weakening the forces their and withholding information from them so they didnt

take an preparations (but they did take the fall). Roosevelt knew this would enrage the public

and lead the people into war.

Personally, I find Theobald a little bitter. He was at Pearl Harbor, and I think that colors

his argument with a strong bias. He seems to feel very personally wronged by the attack and by

the slurs upon the leaders there. His argument feels like its a search for blame. He does have

some valid points, but he doesnt really offer a lot of proof. You have to take into account that


3/4

hindsight is 20/20. I think its easier to look back now and say, Well, of course they had all the

evidence! Theres only one way to interpret this, when, of course, historys done all the

legwork for you. His proof feels rather shaky and his statistics really just serve to say that it was

a tragedy, not that Roosevelt deliberately caused it.

Wohlstetter starts her argument with an extensive and detailed explanation of the

American understanding of Japanese communications, but cautions that our own governments

actions were quite unpredictable. She warns that the State Department and White House

officials were handicapped in judging Japanese intentions and estimate of risk by an inadequate

picture of our own military vulnerability. Basically, what Theobald attributes to cunning,

Wohlstetter attributes to some level of incompetence and disorganization.

Our communication capabilities were high, but no one ever held the complete picture.

She argues that Roosevelt probably ad the following information: the military force of Japan

was moving Indochina, and they were preparing for some sort of major offensive because

they changed their codes, throwing off our ability to read their movements. We knew that they

had aggressive intentions, but were actively pursuing diplomacy with a distinct cutoff date.

This information was compiled into the idea that the attack would be a large invasion in

the South East, not in America. While there was a rumor of an attack on Pear Harbor, it was

believed quite fantastic and the planabsurdly impossiblea view Wohlstetter argues was in

line with Japanese judgment at this time, since Yamamotos plan was in direct contradiction to

Japanese naval doctrine. She argues that Pearl Harbor was not Rooseveltsgrand design

because we just didnt know. There was so much information, much of it conflicting or


4/4

incomplete, that no one had a clear idea what would happen, when it would happen, or where

it would happen. We just knew something was comingno one realized it would be in our

backyard.

I find this argument much more compelling because it addresses the confusion that

often occurs in the moment. Its easier to believe that people would fail to understand than

that people would deliberately cause an attack with a high death toll. Its the hindsight issue

again.

I think it will be evident by this point that I simply cannot give credence to Theobalds

theory. His argument reeks of bias to me, of blaming, and of hurt. And I understand thatIm

sure it was a traumatic experience. But I dont believe that that makes it automatically true. I

think Wohlstetters arguments are more logicalthat we were confused, a little arrogant and

simply unaware. Im more willing to believe incompetence than Machiavellian cunning, I

suppose. Its popular to blame grand conspiracies on the government, but in reality, they

struggle with basic tasks running well. How on earth could they maintain such a large and dark

deception for so long? So I suppose Wohlstetter wins almost by default, though I felt she did

write a less obviously biased piece. I didnt feel like I was listening to her personal crusade like I

did with Theobalds argument.

pearl harbor debate

Documents