[Thoss]

This thread follows from another I started.

I've been doing some reading on the origins of the CIA and what frequently comes up in the minutes from intelligence professionals and advocates (former OSS men, Bureaucrats in the War, State and Navy Department, Cabinet members) is the belief that Pearl Harbour could have been prevented had intelligence been centralized prior to 1941.

Do you think there is any validity to this belief? Could have Pearl Harbour been prevented or mitigated had a Central Intelligence Agency been able to pool information and various forms of intelligence?

[imagicnation]

You should be careful with this topic as you may find a lot of people believe that the planned attack on Pearl Harbour WAS known. Many believe FDR needed the Japanese to attack America or else the people of America would not support the war.
With a growing threat of Japan in China and near American interests, it's actually surprising that America didn't at least take steps so that if she were attacked, she could easily retaliate. It didn't take an extensive Intelligence network to show that the Pacific was in tormoil.

[alyster]

Accually she did take steps. All of US Navy aircraft carriers were out of Pearl and US had already placed huge orders on new ships. Probably the same ships which won the Midway were already under construction before Pearl was attacked.

[Captain Hat]

It's hard to say, really. From what I've read, the Japanese were sending out all manner of confusing messages, which with the aid of a CIA in those days may not have helped. It is true that US codebreakers often found references in Japanese diplomatic cables regarding Pearl Harbor, but they also contained references to dozens of other US military bases in almost all of the Pacific and on the West Coast. It would have been highly difficult to determine which base the Japanese were actually trying to nail.

So, while Pearl Harbor was a known target of the Japanese, no one in the US government was sure that that was actually going to be the target of an attack.

[Thoss]

That's true.

One of the arguments (from early American intelligence professionals) is that had there been a CIA with somewhat of an assertive mandate in 1941, with an intelligence network in Japan, China and Korea to coordinate with codebreaking, the surprise at Pearl Harbour could have been mitigated.

But I suppose given the political atmosphere in the US at this time, adverse to the idea of intelligence organizations, even codebreaking, could not have grappled with the idea of espionage. I think Henry Stimson encapsulated the attitudes at the time best: "Gentlemen, don't read each other's mail". Thankfully, in the minds of intelligence professionals, he and many others changed their minds.

[Smilin' Dave]

One could similarly argue the Japanese provoked the US with its occupation of Vietnam (a French colonial possession, though as the US would demonstrate post-war it would prefer no colonial possessions), and by conducting a brutal war in China which was facilitated in large part by Japanese imports from the US (hence the embargo). Had Japan ceased its pursuit of empire, the embargo would have been lifted... doesn't seem that unreasonable.

Wouldn't FDR have gotten the same casus belli if Pearl Harbour had been attacked, but it wasn't caught completely by surprise? I mean an attack on a US naval bases, even if unsuccessful, would have been a far more serious incident than an attack on a single US ship...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panay_incident

[Oxymoron]

I think people misunderstand the lack of communications of the era, and are judging it based on todays venues.