Heads up, Fall of Singapore BBC2

#4: cover up of/by high ups. H. Smith; Master of Semphill. This ahistorical conspiracy merits a rebuttal, just to stop it flying by default.

Japan had sunk Czarist Russia in 1905. We did 2 and tried for 3 Naval Treaties with Japan, 1926-36, hoping she would sink Bolshevik Russia and repel Red hordes on the Manchukuo border with Siberia. It was legal to trade with Japan. USA initiated (as the League had not) sanctions from 1938, culminating in 1941 with causing the exiled Dutch Govt. to cease to sell E.Indies oil. That was the proximate cause of the Pacific War…but it was an unintended consequence. FDR was not seeking GI/Navy megadeath: he was trying to put the upstart invader of China back into its home islands.

The Japanese were zealots, fanatics even, but they weren’t stupid. They knew that if they simply declared war, the USA’s size and industrial might would beat them. Everything I’ve ever heard or read centres around the ‘knock-out blow’ strategy. They needed something to at least temporarily, give them an edge to establish themselves. Yes, they felt impelled to fight the USA, but I have seen no evidence that they would have declared war without feeling that they had, of were in the process of, acquiring that advantage.

On the sub thing. (Things that fly, rather than sink are more my tipple…) Here is another thread… There is a fascinating story about XI U-Boat. This type of U-Boat isn’t even supposed to exist…and wasn’t officially built. The back-story on this is intriguing, as it may have been part of a secret attempt by the German industrialists (The Dulles brothers et al.) to negotiate an armistice with the USA. These are the same industrialist who I think Kennedy called the ‘Industrial-Military Complex’, who were actually funding the Nazis before the war….. I only mention this as an illustration of the hiding or re-writing of history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1k1MFyaRjY
http://www.rense.com/general56/supsec.htm
I’ve never been a great one for so called ‘conspiracy theories’, but here’s one that’s never gone away, and never will…;-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHulkmPMInE&feature=related
I haven’t read this mans book, and probably never will, I’m more interested in aeroplanes..! Stalin, however, went to his grave convinced that Hitler had escaped. Eisenhower was of the same opinion….and was still saying so into the 1950’s. One may perhaps discount all the obviously biased accounts of the staff in the bunker too. The Russians arriving, and accompanied by a British embedded reported didn’t find Hitler…and they were very motivated. They did come across about a dozen doubles though. The skull-fragment that was held in Moscow isn’t even male. On this I really have no opinion. Either way he’s brown-bread.

If there’s a moral to all this, it’s that we should all view some of these major events with a good dose of scepticism, and that many secrets have a way of raising themselves, zombie-like from the dead. The Second World War ended the British Empire, but there was never any doubt that the USA would come out on the winning side, industrially, commercially, militarily and strategically.

After the attack on PH, whether the Japanese had declared war or not was irrellevant. War with America was a done-deal, and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

I’m not suggesting for a second that the US would not have declared war following the Pearl Harbor attack…..but I am suggesting that even without the attack, war between the US and Japan was almost inevitable within weeks if not days.

You yourself said:

…America, either by design (Probably) or inepitude (Certainly) had pushed Japan into a corner where she felt she (Japan.) had been provoked. America stood in the way of their expansion and seizure of resources to continue their wars etc…

I don’t believe the Japanese went to war because they thought they could deliver a knock-out blow at Pearl Harbor…..the Japanese wanted to deliver a knock-out blow at Pearl Harbor because they were already going to war with the US (and the British and Dutch).

…whether the contents of Op JB are true or not…

They are not…..and certainly not about Dutch submarine K-XVII. :rolleyes:

…they do fit uncannily with the other stories that have emerged…

Yes, but that’s the novelist’s (or screenwriter’s) art isn’t it! 😉

Wow.

I don’t think the US entry into WW2 was ever conditional on the attack on Pearl Harbor; although they failed to do so before the attack, to maintain the element of surprise, the Japanese intended to declare war on the US anyway. The attack on Pearl Harbor was part of the Japanese strategy, it wasn’t the whole strategy, and they would have declared war with the attack’s failure (or partial failure), or with the attack’s cancellation and I do not see any circumstances that would allow the US to remain neutral once Japan had declared war on the US; and certainly not in the face of any aggression towards any US territory (which was Japan’s plan).

Also I’m not convinced that had the US known of the attack in advance that they’d have chosen to take their aircraft-carries out of the way; was the importance of aircraft-carriers appreciated by the US before Pearl Harbor? Of course, we know now how vital they were to the Pacific War but until Pearl Harbor what had aircraft-carriers actually achieved in the war (apart from at Taranto)?

That’s a remarkable statement. However it’s also illogical and not supported by the events as they are generally understood. The Japanese were not figuring failure. It was a one-shot strategy, aimed at blunting US power in the Pacific (and the British Empires too) for just long enough to allow the Japanese to get such a firm grip, that the US would decide removing them was simply too impractical – and too expensive.
America, either by design (Probably) or inepitude (Certainly) had pushed Japan into a corner where she felt she (Japan.) had been provoked. America stood in the way of their expansion and seizure of resources to continue their wars etc. Remember also, that the Japs would have been well aware that the so called ‘Volunteers’ flying for the Chinese Nationalist, were, in truth, USAAF personel. It wasn’t exactly a well-kept secret.
Roosevelt had an excellent close working relationship with Churchill, after all, Churchill was half-American. Roosevelt was sending as much aid to the UK to help her fight Japans Axis allies as he could. Politically however, the power of the so-called ‘Isolationists’, such as prominent figure and Nazi-sympathiser Charles Lindberg, – hamstringing his desires. The USA had only just about decided to go into the Great War at the last minute, and even then with grave misgivings. After the attack on PH, whether the Japanese had declared war or not was irrellevant. War with America was a done-deal, and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. As it happened, there was a diplomatic ****-up, and the attack had already taken place when the Japanese delivered their Declaration of War. Would they have done this if there had been no plan to deliver a ‘knock-out blow’..? No, it’s not credible.
Ultimately, the Japanese misread the Americans as badly as Hitler misread the UK and her determination to stand by (at least some) of her pre-war treaty agreements. The US military had also, it must be remembered, cracked the Japanese Naval codes. The higher levels in US Government had a pretty good idea that war was imminent, that the Japanese Fleet was at sea, and that they were a threat enough to be concerned about. Why wasn’t PH ready..?
Thirty years ago, people were less cynical. Today, whether the contents of Op JB are true or not, they do fit uncannily with the other stories that have emerged.
As for what had been learned about carriers, well, for one thing, Britain had effectively sunk the Bismark with a few outdated biplanes…even if the RN insisted on finishing her off with their nice big shiny guns. I think that the Americans realised that, in the vastness of the Pacific, the carriers offered the only hope of prosecuting their strategic aims.

I don’t think the US entry into WW2 was ever conditional on the attack on Pearl Harbor; although they failed to do so before the attack, to maintain the element of surprise, the Japanese intended to declare war on the US anyway. The attack on Pearl Harbor was part of the Japanese strategy, it wasn’t the whole strategy, and they would have declared war with the attack’s failure (or partial failure), or with the attack’s cancellation and I do not see any circumstances that would allow the US to remain neutral once Japan had declared war on the US; and certainly not in the face of any aggression towards any US territory (which was Japan’s plan).

Also I’m not convinced that had the US known of the attack in advance that they’d have chosen to take their aircraft-carries out of the way; was the importance of aircraft-carriers appreciated by the US before Pearl Harbor? Of course, we know now how vital they were to the Pacific War but until Pearl Harbor what had aircraft-carriers actually achieved in the war (apart from at Taranto)?

The crew of the submarine wasn’t reqired to ‘know’. They were simply unfortunate witnesses to the fact that the Allies were aware of the sighting at that time and place. Both Churchill and Roosevelt desperately wanted the US in the war. Intelligence had shown that the Japanese might attack at any moment (The US had broken the Japanese cyphers.) Had the US forces on Hawaii been alerted, the Japanese fleet would almost certainly have withdrawn. US Isolationists (Prominent amongst whom was Charles Lindberg of course…) may well then have kept the US out of the war for years, with disasterous consequences for the UK, Europe, (the Jews) & the world in general.
As it was the Japanese were spooked when they didn’t find and bomb the US carriers, and cancelled their second attack. This bears out the Churchill and Roosevelts fears.
Instances like this are not things that can be played-out in public. The Japanese hadn’t, technically declared war – (…they didn’t until after the attack anyway, owing to delays in Washington.) and the US forces had lost track of the location of Japanese fleet, even though they were well aware that a conflict might be imminent. If the Allies had have aknowledged the sighting officially, and the Japanese attack was consequently called-off, the US administration would have been politically unable to enter the war. To admit they allowed it to happen would have been absolutely unthinkable.
Incidentally, I started to read this book with utter and complete skepticism, but in fact, there is much evidence contained within, and, on a subject shrouded in the utmost secrecy, it has that ring of truth about it. Even if only half of it is true, it’s a remarkable book. 🙂

The fact that the Americans removed their carriers from Pearl in good time and had a colour newsreel camera set up to record the attack is sufficient evidence to suspect the president was aware of the impending Japanese attack and allowed it to happen at the minimum cost in order to get USA into WW2.Both the president and Churchill were freemasons so order out of chaos would be their strategy……

I would recommend that you read the book. :rolleyes:

Well, I’ve now read the book (OP:JB) and I’ve also read some of ‘The Paladin’ by Brian Garfield (yes, that Brian Garfield) in collaboration with ‘Christopher Creighton’ (who is actually screenwriter, actor and director, John Ainsworth-Davis) that also covers the alleged destruction of Dutch submarine K-XVII and the murder of its crew by ‘Christopher Creighton’ and…

…frankly, I don’t believe a word of it!

There are so many unbelievable ‘facts’ and so many technical errors in the accounts, not to mention, so many inconsistencies between the two books that the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the whole K-XVII allegation is complete fiction.

For example this is what ‘Christopher Creighton’ claims that he read in the log of the submarine (before he sank her):

SIGHTED FLEET 0535 DEC 2. INTERMITTENT SIGHTINGS UNTIL 0750 FLEET ZIGZAGGING. MEAN COURSE 135° (T) SPEED APPROX 16 KNOTS. SIGHTED 6 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS 2 BATTLESHIPS 3 CRUISERS 6 DESTROYERS. IF PRESENT SPEED AND COURSE MAINTAINED DESTINATION OAHU ETA 0600 DEC 7. 0800 SURFACED TO RECHARGE BATTERIES. SENT SIGNAL CLASS 1 CIPHER TOP SECRET IMMEDIATE C-IN-C EASTERN FLEET REPEATED ADMIRALTY EYES COMMANDER IN CHIEF & FIRST SEA LORD ONLY. 1100 RECEIVED SIGNAL FROM C-IN-C EASTERN FLEET ORDERING ME TO KEEP RADIO SILENCE AND AWAIT FURTHER SIGNAL WITH ORDERS FOR POSITION TO PICK UP OFFICER WITH SEALED ORDERS. NO CONTACT TO BE MADE WITH ANY SHIP OR PORT. TOTAL SECURITY TO BE MAINTAINED.

Far from, very clumsily, setting-out the premise which requires the crew of this submarine to be killed ‘because they know too much’ this supposed log-entry actually provides evidence that the submarine couldn’t have seen the Japanese fleet as is claimed.

It is these weaknesses in the detail that convince me that ‘Christopher Creighton’ wasn’t the seventeen-year-old ‘super-agent’ that he claims he was when (he claims) he blew-up submarine K-XVII (and her crew)!

“Smoke & Mirrors”. “The fog of war”. Hubris. They all play their part.

Singapore? The cost of it was an Empire.

John Green

Smoke and Mirrors.

The incident in Ireland is only a small part of a more complex story. Maritime operations aren’t really my bag, but I suspect the term ‘base’ in this context is the semantic issue here. It would certainly have been ‘secret’. If subs were landing and picking-up personnel and material at one place – perhaps with some regularity, that may have fallen under the heading of ‘secret base’. Maybe equipment, arms and explosives too – who knows. Either way, Churchill was pretty *issed-off with the issue, that much we know.
The Dutch sub, Dieppe and of course Borman are the main events. Interestingly, – some years ago, there was a man from the Reigate area who was supposed to have claimed MB was his father. The son is reputed to have been found hanged in his prison cell after coming-out with the story. Evidence? Of course not, – but the special services had a debreifing centre just down the road.
It’s amusing to think that without the events in the book, Ian Fleming would have lacked both the source-material for his book, his character and a name that was supposed to be as unremarkable as possible….!
I hope that you enjoy your read as much as I did. 🙂

Yes, U-boat refuelling (and re-arming) while at sea is well documented, especially early in the war, and also the use of German merchant ships in neutral harbours (for intelligence gathering if not actual re-supply)…

…but then, you see, these facts don’t strengthen the case for a ‘secret base’ in neutral Ireland, do they.

If the Germans are so good a re-supplying their U-boats elsewhere…..why bother in Ireland, a stone’s throw from home? 😉

I can hardly remember looking forward to getting a book so much! :diablo:

There are plenty of history books that contain as much opinion fact. The reason for the ‘fact or fiction – decide for yourself’ sub-title in this case was pretty obvious. The publishers didn’t think that the book would get a sympathetic reception otherwise, owing to the sensitive contents, most especially about Churchill. They were right of course.
The authors view is that he isn’t bothered if the reader chooses to believe or not, but he felt dutybound to set the record straight for those that failed to survive.

If the Germans did have something in place in Ireland, I don’t think for a moment that they had anything like a full-blown operation as they did in other locations and neither does the book claim that. They certainly had the reputation of being able to access fuel away from home on both sides of the Atlantic. Boat to boat refuelling wasn’t a huge problem anyway (Fishing-boats often do this apparently.) if they were stuck. Later, of course, they had dedicated supply boats.
It’s certain U-Boats landed prisoners;-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-35_(1936)

and spies in the Irish Republic on numerous occasions, even if the Abwehr were generally unsuccessful – as far as we know. Churchill was also notoriously well-informed. He might have been a bit rash at times, but he was no fool. 🙂

Was there ever a re-issued paperback without a gash cover..?

Well, maybe not but for a book that was originally supposed to be a true account to have ‘fact or fiction – decide for yourself!’ printed on the cover would lead me to believe that it is perhaps not as factual as it originally claimed! 😀

I’ll read the book and make my own mind up but I’ll need a lot of convincing. I’ve read quite a lot of factual accounts about the ‘undercover war’ and, to me, there are far too many opportunities for unscrupulous authors to just make stuff up and claim it cannot be proved because it is all ‘top secret’. :rolleyes:

Personally, I think the real trick if you’re serious about your history is to be able to look at what others have written with a healthy sceptical eye and not to take anything at face value, not just the incredible but also the mundane ‘facts’ that help to build up the bigger picture.

I was aware of Ireland interning airmen from both sides, but not the issue of U-boats in Ireland. There certainly weren’t proper facilities such as ‘pens’. – Yet, there were persistent rumours during the war that a hardcore of anti-British activists were helping to supply U-Boats. Especially earlier in the war. Fanciful? Maybe.

This is a classic example of what I mean; ‘rumours’ of secret U-boat bases in neutral Ireland. It sounds plausible and I’m sure there were (and are) those that would like to believe such a rumour because of the resentment of neutrality by Ireland or a deeper prejudice but before accepting this as fact would such a secret U-boat base make any strategic sense?

Why would the U-boats need a base in Ireland; fuel, torpedoes, food? Well why would a U-boat bother to re-stock with food when only a few hundred miles from a U-boat base in France? The same is true for re-arming torpedoes. What about fuel? Well a Type VII U-boat needs over 100 tons of diesel to fill its tanks; that’s not the sort of quantity that you can shift with a couple of German sympathisers in a pick-up truck or a rowing-boat. Torpedoes weigh a ton, literally, and a U-boat needs between fourteen and twenty of them to re-arm. And how is all this stuff going to be shipped secretly to Ireland and stored until it is needed?

Suddenly this secret U-boat base doesn’t sound so plausible. 😉

A Good Read.

Just spent £2.65 on a copy from eBay…..interesting cover design don’t you think? 😉

…lol…that was about what I paid from an Oxfam bookshop. Was there ever a re-issued paperback without a gash cover..? OK, well, a few. You’ll certainly get your £2.65p – worth of entertainment reading it. I did. I’m a natural sceptic, and the book makes it clear that, by the very nature of the activities it describes, absolute proof isn’t going to be found in your local library. I wasn’t in a particularly open frame of mind when I started to read the book either.
Incidentally, with regard to the recovery of looted funds. The purpose from the outset was to return them to their owners, not to slip them into the pockets of the Allies, which is exactly what the Russians would have done if they’d got to them first. Churchill wanted to get Europe’s economies running again.
There are some very interesting and convoluted politics behind most of the issues the book covers.
I was aware of Ireland interning airmen from both sides, but not the issue of U-boats in Ireland. There certainly weren’t proper facilities such as ‘pens’. – Yet, there were persistent rumours during the war that a hardcore of anti-British activists were helping to supply U-Boats. Especially earlier in the war. Fanciful? Maybe. However, Churchill was highly animated by this issue. He threatened to seize Irish bases or invade Ireland to deny the Germans access. That would have gone down like a lead balloon with the US….so it never happened. One may then easily imagine Churchill subsequently taking less overt actions. Neither of the three parties would be motivated to advertise any of this, – even if such actions occurred.
The truth or a ripping yarn? You’ll just have to make up your own mind. Part way through, I was still highly sceptical. One really needs to read the whole book.
From tea poisoned with isotopes, poisoned-needle umbrellas, unlikely suicides to people impossibly locked inside holdalls, there are still plenty of reminders that not everything flows along the river of democracy to get to the ocean, especially when the survival of the nation hangs in the balance. 😉

Just spent £2.65 on a copy from eBay…..interesting cover design don’t you think? 😉

I’ve still got “The Battle of Britain (it was the Sun wot won it)”, and “Amelia (me and Fred are still sitting on this beach and we’re a bit pi55ed off)” to get through; I’ve only just finished “Douglas Bader (the lost years at the Stork Hotel)”.

I would recommend that you read the book. (:rolleyes:)

unless the Japanese have painted ‘Pearl Harbor or Bust’ down the side of one of their carriers

They did do that, but they wrote it in Japanese, and the Dutch couldn’t read it!

The programme stated that Churchill expected the US forces (based at Pearl Harbour) to come to the aid of Singapore, this being the case, why would he actively assist the Japanese to attack without warning?

Obviously it was in Churchills mind, that any act that brought the US into the war, wasn’t all bad, but what would have happened, if as the Japanese hoped, the US decided to “sit this one out”?

For an organisation such as the virtually private force that Churchill ran

So the words coalition, parliament, and house of Lords, mean nothing to you then?

I think Episode 1 is repeated on BBC2 England/Scotland Sun27May, Wales Mon28May… but NOT on i-player

The crew of the submarine wasn’t reqired to ‘know’. They were simply unfortunate witnesses to the fact that the Allies were aware of the sighting at that time and place.

What?!?? That still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

Let me try to spell-out what I mean. Just because a Dutch submarine sights the Japanese fleet (on 28th November – I think according to the book) that doesn’t mean that they know that the Japanese are going to attack Pearl Harbor unless the Japanese have painted ‘Pearl Harbor or Bust’ down the side of one of their carriers! It doesn’t mean that the carriers are going to attack anywhere; it could be a training-exercise, it could be anything, they are not at war. Also, if they are going to attack (nine days later), they could attack anywhere: Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaya, Australia, the Philippines, China or even Russia.

Unless the submarine captain has psychic-powers how does he know where they are going or what they are going to do? :confused:

But, according to you and this book, James Bond, I mean Christopher Creighton says that the whole submarine-crew had to be wiped-out because ‘they knew too much’!

Sorry, but I’ve not heard so much BS for a long, long time! :rolleyes: