Churchill and Pearl Harbour - could he have warned FDR?

Finbarr the Fair

Rereading a book on British codebreaking activities in the Far East, I was reminded that somewhere, sometime, I came across a conspiracy theory that Churchill was aware of the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbour - but deliberately let the US be surprised.

I can't confirm this and think it unlikely - the codebreaking book was by someone who only joined the outfit later in the war so wouldn't have known of any such activities in 1941. And even had he heard rumours would probably have been warned off revelations. It would be explosive even now?

The only "evidence" that has any credibility is that Churchill is alleged to have demanded to know whether Japan had attacked US bases when being told of the assault on Malaya. Which is explicable by anxiety that FDR might not get a DOW on Japan an Germany through if the US wasn't also attacked - at least in my view.

Has anyone come across this theory and any supporting evidence? Or is it as daft as the ones stating FDR hung the Pacific Fleet out to dry?

FWIW, I could see Churchill taking such a decision - in order to ensure the US did enter the War. And I could justify it (well, sort of) with the saying that "In war and diplomacy, IF you're Not cheating -you're not trying hard enough".

Of course, Churchill might have expected the US forces to be on alert and so blunt the attack. Especially as he'd probably be aware that a War warning had been issued to all US bases and HQs in the Pacific.

But what would other people think IF the tale was true.
 

Mark E.

There would be no gain for Churchill to let the Americans be surprised. An advance warning could have mobilized forces and saved the Arizona. Since the attack still happens, the US enters the war, just with fewer casualties in Hawaii.
 

Hugh Third of Five

Churchill and Hitler were both trying to manipulate the Second Sino-Japanese War, which would become the Asia-Pacific Theater of World War II to their advantage. Hitler wanted the Japanese to open a second front with Russia. Most the Lend-Lease Aid reaching the Red Army came through ports in the Russian Far East. Churchill of course did want American entry on the Allied side, and was well aware of rising tensions between the Japan and the USA, particularly over Japan's war crimes in China (the seizure of French Indochina was the last straw leading to sanctions because it was part of an effort to starve the Chinese into submission by cutting them off from trade with the USA). Churchill had promised to declare war on Japan within the hour of the start of war between the Americans and the Japanese. What benefit would there have been to keeping an attack secret though? If the USA had its fighters and anti-aircraft batteries on alert, and devastated the Japanese bombers, it's not like they'd have said, "Your attack was a disaster, so we'll forget about declaring war on you." In fact, warning the Americans would probably have been to the British advantage. The US Pacific Fleet would be in a much better position to launch counteroffensives, and the British warning would have made the Americans much more supportive of allying with the UK.


Now there is evidence that he may have used his position as Lord of the Admiralty in the first World War to bring the USA to enter on the entente side. He did say that Britain should endeavor to attract as much neutral shipping as possible, to earn Germany more enemies, and of course there are the theories about how much advance knowledge the Admiralty had with regards to u-boats and the Lusitania.
 

Kendog52361

While I doubt it actually happened, I could see Churchill "keeping quiet" if he knew ahead of time. Remember, while I don't have "hard numbers", there was a significant anti-war movement in the US, including in the US Congress, which would need to vote with, I think, a 2/3rd Majority of both Houses to formally Declare War. If the Japanese tried, and failed, in an attack against Pearl Harbor, there's a chance that there wouldn't be enough "anger" at Japan to get a Declaration of War through the US Congress. However, with the "slaughter" that happened at Pearl Harbor, the vast majority of war opposition disappeared overnight. Sure, there were the "overseas possessions" of the US, like Guam or even the Philippines, but I don't know that them being attack would be enough to "break through" the anti-war feelings throughout the US.
 

Grand Admiral Thrawn

Donor
Kendog52361 said:
While I doubt it actually happened, I could see Churchill "keeping quiet" if he knew ahead of time. Remember, while I don't have "hard numbers", there was a significant anti-war movement in the US, including in the US Congress, which would need to vote with, I think, a 2/3rd Majority of both Houses to formally Declare War. If the Japanese tried, and failed, in an attack against Pearl Harbor, there's a chance that there wouldn't be enough "anger" at Japan to get a Declaration of War through the US Congress. However, with the "slaughter" that happened at Pearl Harbor, the vast majority of war opposition disappeared overnight. Sure, there were the "overseas possessions" of the US, like Guam or even the Philippines, but I don't know that them being attack would be enough to "break through" the anti-war feelings throughout the US.
Click to expand...

I doubt that would be needed, a sneak attack thwarted only by Our Boys is enough to get war going. I mean, Japan attacked other US possessions as well, so not as if the IJN can pretend it was a mistake.
 

Spencersj345.346

Of course depending on how much warning Churchill hypothetically could have given the IJN strike force could have had the misfortune to arrive at an empty harbor with all the AAA batteries being on standby alert and the fighters on a rotational CAP. Mind you unless the warning is early enough the USN will be loosing the San Francisco and New Orleans since they are undergoing overhauls that can't be canceled without at least few days notice, mind you good luck hiding the fleet leaving.
 
Last edited:

Colin Haggett

There was a history channel presentation about a decade ago were the presenter (a British Historian) blamed Churchill for not informing Roosevelt of the attack being planned on Pearl Harbor.
The following facts were presented:
1. US Navy and Army Intelligence organisations had broken Japanese codes and knew that an attack was imminent
2. The two organisations were not talking to each other
3. Neither were supplying information to Roosevelt
4. Roosevelt was not that interested anyway
5. The US Navy was sharing intelligence with Bletchley Park
6. Churchill - who was always interested in intelligence - was supplied with the information about US Navy code breaking and its content
7. Churchill regularly communicated with Roosevelt even before Pearl Harbor

Based on the above information it therefore became Churchill's responsibility to inform Roosevelt of the impending attack.

I would have to ask why would the British Prime Minister have the responsibility to inform the US President of intelligence gathered by an organization that the President was CinC of.

The same presenter - in another episode - expected Churchill to stop the BEF advance into Belgium on the first day of the German invasion which was less than 24hrs after Churchill became PM.

I'm seeing an anti Churchill pattern here.
 
Last edited:
CV(N)-6

CV(N)-6

Colin Haggett said:
There was a history chanel presentation about a decade ago were the presenter (a British Historian) blamed Churchill for not informing Roosevelt of the attack being planned on Pearl Harbor.
The following facts were presented:
1.
Click to expand...
That’s a lot of facts for the History Channel
 

Matt Wiser

Kendog52361 said:
While I doubt it actually happened, I could see Churchill "keeping quiet" if he knew ahead of time. Remember, while I don't have "hard numbers", there was a significant anti-war movement in the US, including in the US Congress, which would need to vote with, I think, a 2/3rd Majority of both Houses to formally Declare War. If the Japanese tried, and failed, in an attack against Pearl Harbor, there's a chance that there wouldn't be enough "anger" at Japan to get a Declaration of War through the US Congress. However, with the "slaughter" that happened at Pearl Harbor, the vast majority of war opposition disappeared overnight. Sure, there were the "overseas possessions" of the US, like Guam or even the Philippines, but I don't know that them being attack would be enough to "break through" the anti-war feelings throughout the US.
Click to expand...

There is no supermajority needed to declare war. All it takes is a simple majority vote in both houses.

If the Philippines are attacked, with Army and Navy bases? That's it. Causus belli right there.
 

jsb

Finbarr the Fair said:
that Churchill was aware of the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbour - but deliberately let the US be surprised.
Click to expand...
Did they not try to warn the USSR about the German attack (and be dismissed by Stalin as they could not share Ultra where they got the info from).......why would they do any differently to somebody far closer?
 
Vanguard45

Vanguard45

If that's the case then the British in the Far East should've performed a lot better. Furthermore letting the fleet get attacked in harbor is a terrible idea since the US Navy would keep the Japanese battle hounds (Nagato class to the Kongos) awaiting them. If the US navy is knocked out then the Japanese battlefleet can focus on the British and easily overwhelm the Prince of Wales and Repulse
 

Belisarius II

Colin Haggett said:
There was a history channel presentation about a decade ago were the presenter (a British Historian) blamed Churchill for not informing Roosevelt of the attack being planned on Pearl Harbor.
The following facts were presented:
1. US Navy and Army Intelligence organisations had broken Japanese codes and knew that an attack was imminent
2. The two organisations were not talking to each other
3. Neither were supplying information to Roosevelt
4. Roosevelt was not that interested anyway
5. The US Navy was sharing intelligence with Bletchley Park
6. Churchill - who was always interested in intelligence - was supplied with the information about US Navy code breaking and its content
7. Churchill regularly communicated with Roosevelt even before Pearl Harbor

Based on the above information it therefore became Churchill's responsibility to inform Roosevelt of the impending attack.

I would have to ask why would the British Prime Minister have the responsibility to inform the US President of intelligence gathered by an organization that the President was CinC of.

The same presenter - in another episode - expected Churchill to stop the BEF advance into Belgium on the first day of the German invasion which was less than 24hrs after Churchill became PM.

I'm seeing an anti Churchill pattern here.
Click to expand...

1. yes the knew American Intelligence knew the Japanese were going to attack them, but not where. They thought the Philippines was the likely target, not Pear Harbor.
2. There was some intelligence sharing, but their weren't actually allies yet, but would share something of that magnitude.
3 . Both were, the British more indirectly. What their basing that on is there was period when "Magic" decrypts stopped going to the WH, because of a security breech.
4. FDR was deeply interested in Intelligence. He was obsessed with cloak & dagger, and developing channels of information running to him alone. The OSS was his own project.
5. They probable were. And this proves what?
6. He might have been. Again what does this prove?
7. Yes they were. Once again what does this prove?

If he did know he would have no reason not to warn FDR.

Why would Churchill change the Allied War Plan on the first day in office? He had no idea about the details of the Manstein Plan, and that the Allies were waking into a trap.

Yes there could be an anti Churchill bias.

In conclusion I think the History Channel should stick to high quality programs like "Hunting Hitler", and "Ancient Aliens".
 

Matt Wiser

The problem with the "Churchill knew, but didn't tell FDR" and the "FDR knew" is that they're often peddled by people who still think to this day that the U.S. getting involved in WW II was a bad idea. Charles Beard, Charles Tansil, and Harry Elmer Barnes in the '50s and Pat Buchanan types today, revisionists, in other words, still cling to this notion. The first three clung to the notion that Germany and Japan were rational actors, and that the U.S. and Britain should've given them a free hand, while Buchanan and his ilk cling to the notion that the U.S. and Britain should've let the Germans take on the Soviets and batter each other senseless, and in so doing, preserve the British Empire as a force for stability, and if Japan strikes? The U.S. and British would've been free from the "Germany First" strategy to deal with Japan. Had my fill of these types in Grad School, thanks very much.
 

Crowbar Six

Finbarr the Fair said:
Rereading a book on British codebreaking activities in the Far East, I was reminded that somewhere, sometime, I came across a conspiracy theory that Churchill was aware of the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbour - but deliberately let the US be surprised.

I can't confirm this and think it unlikely - the codebreaking book was by someone who only joined the outfit later in the war so wouldn't have known of any such activities in 1941. And even had he heard rumours would probably have been warned off revelations. It would be explosive even now?

The only "evidence" that has any credibility is that Churchill is alleged to have demanded to know whether Japan had attacked US bases when being told of the assault on Malaya. Which is explicable by anxiety that FDR might not get a DOW on Japan an Germany through if the US wasn't also attacked - at least in my view.

Has anyone come across this theory and any supporting evidence? Or is it as daft as the ones stating FDR hung the Pacific Fleet out to dry?

FWIW, I could see Churchill taking such a decision - in order to ensure the US did enter the War. And I could justify it (well, sort of) with the saying that "In war and diplomacy, IF you're Not cheating -you're not trying hard enough".

Of course, Churchill might have expected the US forces to be on alert and so blunt the attack. Especially as he'd probably be aware that a War warning had been issued to all US bases and HQs in the Pacific.

But what would other people think IF the tale was true.
Click to expand...

I saw a BBC Timewatch programme that made these allegations mid-80's iirc.
 

Cryhavoc101

Churchill was an advocate of sea power (he was one of the architects of the the then modern RN) and any strategy involving Japan in the far east must therefore by extension involve the USN Surface Fleet as the principle 'plank' of that strategy to contain the Japanese

To have the fleet wrecked in a surprise attack does not serve this strategy

Also telling the USA that the KB is about to attack is a smoking gun - a Casus Belli in its own right - the IJN has no reason to be there other than to attack the USN.

It having sortied at all to the very limits of its range is an effective declaration of war.

So no I don't believe it.

Also while such mass attacks had been war gamed and Taranto showed what a handful of aircraft operating from a carrier could achieve - doing the same in a 'Pearl Harbour' surprise attack analogy was at the time unthinkable.

There may have been intel that could have predicted the attack but I suspect that the analysis of said data without the understanding of what could be achieved (until it was) leaves the whole idea that 'Perfidious Albion' didn't warn the USA a flaky premise at best.

Its a no from me.
 

LegionoftheUnitedStates

If you read contemporary newspaper and magzines in the fall of 1941, it is clear that relations between the US and Japan are getting significantly worse. The US knew that war with Japan was only a matter of time and took a number of defensive steps, including re enforcing Wake and Midway, the ongoing build up in the Philippines, withdrawal of the 4th Marines and Yangtze River Patrol* from China, redeploying Asiatic Fleet vessels to the DEI, etc..

The only real surprise about Pearl Harbor was the IJN attacking a base that far away from Japanese bases, we fully expected an attack on the Philippines, Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. The US was engaged in a race against time to prepare, and failed...

*The USN took a bunch of shallow draft riverboats and sailed them from China across the South China Sea to the Philippines, This story is awesome if it hadn't been overshadowed by other events within a week of it happening.
 
Last edited:

Cryhavoc101

Also lets look at a situation where we know that the British certainly knew an attack was happening that is Barbarossa

They knew a week after Hitler gave the order to start preparations in late 1940

What did they do?

They told Stalin (some one they detested) immediately through whatever communication method they could - loudly and regularly - that the Germans were coming

The fact that he chose to put his fingers in his ears and go "LALALALALALAAA I cannot hear you" and ignore them (and all others telling him the same thing) is totally on him

But we are to believe that the British hid this same knowledge regarding a Pearl Harbour attack from the USA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top