12. Magic

Chapter Twelve

MAGIC

DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATIONS, as often as not, serve to mask the real motives and the real intentions of the governments conducting them. On any point of issue, the governments which are parties to a dispute endeavor to conceal their real aims by invoking language which will present them in the most favorable light and emphasize their passionate dedication to justice and international morality. This generality undoubtedly applies to both the United States and Japan in their discussions in Washington between February and December, 1941.

What the Japanese government did not know all the time these conversations were in progress, and what the American people would not know until four years later, was that months before the Pearl Harbor attack the American government, by a stroke of unmatched good fortune, had been placed in possession of a priceless weapon. Our intelligence had cracked the Japanese code relating to ship movements and the Japanese ultra code used in advising its diplomatic corps throughout the world. With this knowledge in their possession, President Roosevelt, the State Department, and the Army and Navy were privy to all of Japan’s plans and intentions. They knew what the Japanese were saying among themselves, what they were thinking, and what they were planning to do. Our officials could not have been better informed if they had had seats in the Japanese war council. So like a gift of the gods did our leaders consider the breaking of the Japanese code that they referred to cryptanalysis as “Magic.”

The first intimation that the American government had broken the Jap code came on August 29, 1945, when President Truman released the reports of the Army and Navy boards of inquiry which had investigated the Pearl Harbor disaster. The Navy Court had reported its findings to the Secretary of the Navy on October 19, 1944, and the Army Board to the Secretary of War on October 20, 1944. At that time the nation was still at war with Germany and Japan, and, by resorting to the convenient pretext of national security, the secretaries labeled the reports “Top Secret” and suppressed them for ten months. When they were finally released, large sections were still withheld, but there were enough hints in the text made public to suggest that the United States was in possession of the code secret before Pearl Harbor.

The Army Board, for instance, significantly stated,

Information from informers, agents, and other sources as to the activities of our potential enemy and its intentions in the negotiations between the United States and Japan was in possession of the State, War, and Navy departments in November and December of 1941. Such agencies had a reasonably complete knowledge of the Japanese plans and intentions, and were in a position to know their potential moves against the United States. Therefore, Washington was in possession of essential facts as to the enemy’s intentions and proposals.

This information showed clearly that war was inevitable, and late in November absolutely imminent. It clearly demonstrated the necessity for resorting to every trading act possible to defer the ultimate day of breach of relations to give the Army and Navy time to prepare for the eventualities of war.

The messages actually sent to Hawaii by the Army and Navy gave only a small fraction of this information. It would have been possible to have sent safely information ample for the purpose of orienting the commanders in Hawaii, or positive directives for an all-out alert.

Under the circumstances, where information has a vital bearing upon actions to be taken by field commanders, and cannot be disclosed to them, it would appear incumbent upon the War Department then to assume the responsibility for specific directives to such commanders.

[Gen.] Short got neither form of assistance after November 28 from the War Department, his immediate supervising agency. It is believed that the disaster of Pearl Harbor would have been lessened to the extent that its defenses were available and used on December 7 if properly alerted in time. The failure to alert these defenses in time by directive from the War Department, based upon all information available to it, is one for which it is responsible. The War Department had an abundance of vital information that indicated an immediate break with Japan. All it had to do was either get it to Short or give him a directive based upon it. Short was not fully sensitive to the real seriousness of the situation, although the War Department thought he was. It is believed that knowledge of the information available in the War Department would have made him so.

General discussion of the information herein referred to follows:

The records show almost daily information on the plans of the Japanese government. In addition to that cited above and in conjunction therewith the War Department was in possession of information late in November and early in December from which it made deduction that Japan would shortly commence an aggressive war in the South Pacific; that every effort would be made to reach an agreement with the United States government which would result in eliminating the American people as a contestant in the war to come; and that failing to reach the agreement the Japanese government would attack both Britain and the United States. This information enabled the War Department to fix the probable time of war with Japan with a degree of certainty.

In the first days of December this information grew more critical and indicative of the approaching war. Officers in relatively minor positions who were charged with the responsibility of receiving and evaluating such information were so deeply impressed with its significance and the growing tenseness of our relations with Japan, which pointed only to war and war almost immediately, that such officers approached the chief of the war plans division [Gen. Gerow] and the secretary of the general staff [Col., now Lieut. Gen., Walter Bedell Smith] for the express purpose of having sent to the department commanders a true picture of the war atmosphere which, at that time, pervaded the War Department and which was uppermost in the thinking of these officers in close contact with it. The efforts of these subordinate officers to have such information sent to the field were unsuccessful. They were told that field commanders had been sufficiently informed. The secretary to the general staff declined to discuss the matter when told of the decisions of the war plans division.

Two officers then on duty in the War Department are mentioned for their interest and aggressiveness in attempting to have something done. They are Col. R. S. Bratton and Col. Otis K. Sadtler.

The following handling of information reaching the War Department in the evening of December 6 and early Sunday morning, December 7, is cited as illustrative of the apparent lack of appreciation by those in high places in the War Department of the seriousness of this information which was so clearly outlining the trends that were hastening us into war with Japan.

At approximately 10:00 P.M. on December 6, 1941, and more than fifteen hours before the attack at Pearl Harbor, G-2 delivered to the office of the war plans division and to the office of the chief of staff of the Army information which indicated very emphatically that war with Japan was a certainty and that the beginning of such war was in the immediate future. The officers to whom this information was delivered were told of its importance and impressed with the necessity of getting it into the hands of those who could act, the chief of staff of the Army and the chief of the war plans division.

On the following morning, December 7, at about 8:30 A.M., other information reached the office of G-2, vital in its nature and indicating an almost immediate break in relations between the United States and Japan. Col. Bratton, chief, Far Eastern section, G-2, attempted to reach the chief of staff of the Army in order that he might be informed of the receipt of this message. He discovered that the general was horseback riding. Finally, and at approximately 11:25 A.M., the chief of staff reached his office and received this information. Gen. Miles, then G-2 of the War Department, appeared at about the same time. A conference was held between these two officers and Gen. Gerow of the war plans division, who himself had come to the office of the chief of staff. Those hours when Bratton was attempting to reach some one who could take action in matters of this importance and the passing of time without effective action having been taken, prevented this critical information from reaching Gen. Short in time to be of value to him.

About noon a message was hastily dispatched to overseas department commanders, including Short in the Hawaiian department. This message . . . came into Short’s possession after the attack had been completed.¹

These were matters which the Roosevelt-Truman administration did not want to have explored, for they would lead into embarrassing avenues. In March, 1945, when it had become apparent that there would be further investigation of the Pearl Harbor catastrophe after the end of the war, Senator Elbert D. Thomas of Utah, chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, introduced Senate Bill 805 in behalf of the administration. This measure provided that the disclosure of any cryptographic information, either our own or that of any other government, allied or enemy, should be punishable by a sentence of ten years in prison or a fine of $10,000, or both. This measure went to the committee with an indorsement from Secretary of War Stimson and from H. Struve Hensel, acting Secretary of the Navy, who said that enactment of the proposed legislation “is considered essential in the interest of national defense and security.” Senator Thomas, elaborating on this theme, said,

With respect to cryptanalysis, an even greater degree of secrecy is required. Such activities, of vital importance in time of war and also essential in time of peace in order to be ready for war, require even a greater degree of security because the enemy or potential enemy has it within his absolute power to deprive us of any information from this source if he suspects we are getting it.²

This excuse of national security was invoked by many of the principal figures who testified before the Congressional Pearl Harbor Investigating Committee in extenuation of their failure to alert the Hawaiian commanders in accordance with the decoded information in their possession.

The Thomas bill was slipped through the Senate April 9, 1945, but, because of the vigilance of Senator Ferguson, it was recalled and modified so that “any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House” was exempted from its provisions. Ferguson had detected at once that the purpose of the bill was to stifle any prospective investigation of the Pearl Harbor debacle. The following October, when the bill was brought up for consideration in the House, it encountered so much opposition even in its amended form that it was with drawn.³

On November 6, 1945, Representative Gearhart, a member of the four-man Republican minority on the ten-member congressional committee which three weeks before had been appointed to investigate Pearl Harbor, took the floor of the House and for the first time revealed the nature and content of some of the most important Japanese secret code messages intercepted and decoded in 1941.⁴ It was apparent immediately why the administration had gone to such lengths to endeavor to suppress these messages for all time.

Gearhart stated that the messages he was reading were outlined in a “Memorandum of the Judge Advocate General of the Army for the Secretary of War.” The messages set forth in this document all pointed unmistakably to war—and even to the time and place of the initial attack.

The Japanese code intercepts were finally disclosed in full on November 15, 1945, the opening day of the congressional investigation. More than seven hundred of them were produced, of which more than two hundred, dating back to December 2, 1940, dealt with ship movements. The report of the decoded diplomatic messages began on July 2, 1941.⁵

In response to the American order freezing Japanese assets, Foreign Minister Toyoda radioed Ambassador Nomura in Washington July 31, 1941,

Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas. Our empire must immediately take steps to break asunder this ever strengthening chain of encirclement which is being woven under the guidance and with the participation of England and the United States, acting like a cunning dragon seemingly asleep. That is why we decided to obtain military bases in French Indo-China and to have our troops occupy that territory.

Toyoda continued,

I know that the Germans are somewhat dissatisfied over our negotiations with the United States, but we wish at any cost to prevent the United States from getting into war, and we wish to settle the Chinese Incident.⁶

On August 7 Nomura reported to Tokyo,

There is no doubt whatsoever that the United States is prepared to take drastic action depending on the way Japan moves, and thus closing the door on any possibility of settling the situation. . . . It is reported that the President, accompanied by high Army and Navy officials, is meeting with Churchill. This indicates that careful preparations are being made to counter our every move without falling back a single time.⁷

On August 16, two days after the announcement of the Roosevelt-Churchill meeting at sea, Nomura reported to Tokyo,

I understand that the British believe that if they could only have a Japanese-American war started at the back door, there would be a good prospect of getting United States to participate in the European war.⁸

On September 27 Toyoda sent Nomura a digest of a conversation which he had had with Grew the same day in which he said that Japan’s paramount policy was to keep peace with the United States. He said:

Should the United States and Japan come to blows, the Pacific, too, would be immediately thrown into the chaos that is war. World-civilization would then come crashing down. No greater misfortune could befall mankind. . . . If, at this time, Japanese-U.S. relations were to be adjusted so as to promote friendship between them, the effects would be felt not only by the United States and Japan, but would indeed contribute greatly to a world-peace. The imperial government desires the adjustment of Japanese–U.S. relations not only for the sake of Japan and the United States, but hopes that at the same time such a step would become the opening wedge to bringing about peace throughout the world.

All through the dispatches of this period Tokyo kept expressing its hopes that the proposed conference between Roosevelt and Prime Minister Konoye would provide a solution to all problems in the Pacific. On August 26 Tokyo informed Nomura, “Now the international situation as well as our internal situation is strained in the extreme and we have reached the point where we will pin our last hopes on an interview between the Premier and the President.”¹⁰ As the Konoye government entered upon its final weeks of life, the urgency of a Pacific conference was increasingly stressed. A message to Washington on October 1 stated, “Time is now the most important element. Whether this matter materializes or not has a direct and important bearing on peace in the Pacific and even of the world.”¹¹

Again, on October 3, a message to Nomura informed him that the British ambassador to Japan, Sir Robert Craigie, was so impressed with the need of jogging Washington into action in order to avoid a Pacific war that he had cabled Foreign Minister Anthony Eden and Lord Halifax as follows:

Among the difficult points in the materialization of a Japanese-United States conference, is that with Japan speed is required. . . . By pursuing a policy of stalling, the United States is arguing about every word and every phrase on the grounds that it is an essential preliminary to any kind of an agreement. It seems apparent that the United States does not comprehend the fact that by the nature of the Japanese and also on account of the domestic conditions in Japan, no delays can be countenanced. It would be very regrettable indeed if the best opportunity for the settlement of the Far Eastern problems since I assumed my post here were to be lost in such a manner. Prince Konoye is sincerely desirous of avoiding the dangers which Japan may face through her connections in the tripartite pact and in the Axis, for which the prince, himself, feels responsibility. Opposition within the country to the prince’s reversal of policy is fairly strong. Therefore, unless the Japanese–U.S. conversations are held in the very near future, the opportunity will probably be lost. Moreover, if by some chance, meetings fail to materialize, or if they are unduly delayed, the Konoye cabinet will be placed in a precarious position.

The British ambassador was further quoted to the effect that both Grew and he felt it would be “a foolish policy if this superb opportunity is permitted to slip by assuming an unduly suspicious attitude.”¹²

The American government was thus apprised through the ambassador of a country which it already considered its ally of the critical importance of bringing about the meeting between Konoye and Roosevelt if the moderate element in Japan was to be kept in power and peace preserved. The sentiments of Ambassador Craigie, however, were as unavailing as those of the Japanese statesmen themselves in prevailing upon Roosevelt and Hull to seize this chance of keeping the peace.

On October 8, Toyoda, in a long dispatch to Nomura, reviewed the entire course of Japan’s recent relations with other powers, particularly the United States. He said that while the war between Germany and Russia was reaching a deadlock, “all the while England and the United States were strengthening their net about us and we could see no means of concluding the Sino-Japanese affair.” As a consequence, he said, the Japanese government decided upon diplomatic negotiations to terminate the struggle with the Chinese, and, he added, “We feel that it is necessary to open the way for a compromise in our relations with the United States.”

The Japanese foreign minister further said, “The only placid expanse of water on earth is the Pacific. Under these circumstances, it is felt that it is up to both nations to probe into the causes of the trouble between their respective governments and to assure the harmony of the Pacific.”¹³ This message sufficiently expressed the Japanese dilemma of having got too many bears by the tail at once, so that Japan’s principal interest now was to discover a means of letting go. On October 13 Tokyo advised Nomura that “circumstances do not permit even an instant’s delay.”¹⁴

On October 16, in a message to Tokyo, Nomura reported a conversation which Mr. Terasaki, the counselor of the Japanese embassy, had had the preceding evening with Adm. Turner. Terasaki at this meeting stated the Japanese position as follows:

The United States is exceedingly idealistic concerning the Far East. Aiding China might be called a question of principle, but if I may say so, this talk of principles is a sort of hobby among the rich. If it’s not a question of principle, all I can conclude is that you all are determined to make us fight with China until we are exhausted. On the other hand, you have followed a very, very realistic policy in Central America. Forgetting the history of Panama for a moment, we can find plenty of present examples proving what I say. Well, China is not an over-simplified question of principle with us Japanese. It is a question of our life. We have already fought there for four years. You went to Japan on the “Astoria.” I am sure you know something of the temperament of the Japanese. Once a Japanese is in a corner, he will forget all interest in life and death and fight back with fury. I know that we are much poorer than you Americans in material things. I don’t know what the result of a Japanese-American war might be, but even though we lost, I can tell you we would put up an awful fight. If we do not achieve what we are trying to do, it may come to that. Now if you Americans would only extend your hand in friendship to us a little, you could have our lasting amity; otherwise, we may turn out to be permanent enemies.¹⁵

From the secret dispatches, which the Japanese did not know were being read, the American government knew that the Konoye cabinet was approaching a crisis, with the probability that any successor government which would come to power in Japan would probably be far more intransigent and offer little likelihood of avoiding war. On October 16, when it was already known that the Konoye cabinet had resigned, Hull spent two hours telling Mr. Wakasugi of the embassy staff, “The United States is certainly not playing along with a policy of procrastination. I earnestly wish to see peaceful and normal political relations re-established between Japan and the United States.” He knew, of course, that his best hope of attaining that end had gone with the downfall of the Konoye government, but he and the President had done nothing in months of discussions to enable Konoye to reach the settlement which he sought.

When Hull asked Wakasugi what outlook there was for the new cabinet, the Japanese representative told him,

No matter what sort of cabinet it is,. . . it is impossible to leave Japanese-American relations in their present state. The world being in its present condition, particularly faced by the China problem, our people cannot continue undecided as they now are in the face of American opposition. They demanded a government that would take a definite stand either to the right or to the left. There is no mistake about that. If no unanimity can be discovered between our two nations, it would be hard to say in which direction the wind will blow.¹⁶

On the 17th Wakasugi again related Japan’s position to Hull as follows:

Japan occupies only a small corner of what is known as the Far East; moreover, she has been occupied for over four years with the China Incident. She has, therefore, a number of circumstances which are peculiar to herself. So though she may want to comply with all of what the United States suggests, it is impossible for her to immediately do so. . . . Even if we tried to comply with the basic principles advanced by the United States, we could not do so overnight. . .¹⁷

In its last message to Washington, announcing its resignation, the Konoye cabinet directed Nomura,

Regardless of the make-up of the new cabinet, negotiations with the United States shall be continued along the lines already formulated.¹⁸

Although Tokyo was still leaving the door open in the hope of achieving a settlement, Nomura was discouraged and apparently saw the drift to war as almost inevitable. On October 18 he attempted to resign, reporting to the new government in Tokyo that he “was not able to do anything useful,” and suggesting that he be recalled because “it should be fairly clear that I, with my limited ability, shall not be able to accomplish much in the future.”¹⁹ On October 21, however, the Tojo government informed the ambassador,

The new cabinet differs in no way from the former one in its sincere desire to adjust Japanese-United States relations on a fair basis. Our country has said practically all she can say in the way of expressing of opinions in setting forth our stands. We feel we have now reached a point where no further positive action can be taken by us except to urge the United States to reconsider her views. We urge, therefore, that, choosing an opportune moment, either you or Wakasugi let it be known to the United States by indirection that our country is not in a position to spend much more time discussing this matter.²⁰

Here was a clear indication that time was running out, and that, if a settlement could not soon be arranged, matters would pass out of the sphere of diplomacy.

At this juncture, Nomura reported to Tokyo, statements with the effect of inflaming public opinion were made by Senator Pepper and Secretary Knox, who, on October 24, according to the ambassador, said in effect that a “Japanese-American war is inevitable and the clash of the two countries is only days ahead.”²¹ On October 29 Wakasugi reported to Tokyo that “U.S.–Japanese relations are now fast approaching a critical crossroad,” but, he added, “If we choose to good naturedly continue these talks, I am of the opinion that all is not hopeless.”²²

On November 2 the new Japanese foreign minister, Shigenori Togo, advised Nomura that the government expected “to reach a final decision” on policy relative to the United States at a meeting on the 5th. “This will be our government’s last effort to improve diplomatic relations,” he said. “The situation is very grave. When we resume negotiations, the situation makes it urgent that we reach a decision at once.”²³

On November 4 another message from Tokyo said,

Well, relations between Japan and the United States have reached the edge, and our people are losing confidence in the possibility of ever adjusting them. . . . Conditions both within and without our empire are so tense that no longer is procrastination possible, yet in our sincerity to maintain pacific relationships between the empire of Japan and the United States of America, we have decided . . . to gamble once more on the continuance of the parleys, but this is our last effort. Both in name and spirit this counter-proposal of ours is, indeed, the last. I want you to know that. If through it we do not reach a quick accord, I am sorry to say the talks will certainly be ruptured. Then, indeed, will relations between our two nations be on the brink of chaos. I mean that the success or failure of the pending discussions will have an immense effect on the destiny of the Empire of Japan. In fact, we gambled the fate of our land on the throw of this die.

The message referred despairingly to the long protracted negotiations, during which, it was said,

We have already gone far out of our way and yielded and yielded. . . . Bearing all kinds of humiliating things, our government has repeatedly stated its sincerity and gone far, yes, too far, in giving in to them [the Americans]. There is just one reason why we do this—to maintain peace in the Pacific. There seem to be some Americans who think we would make a one-sided deal, but our temperance, I can tell you, has not come from weakness, and naturally there is an end to our long-suffering. Nay, when it comes to a question of our existence and our honor, when the time comes we will defend them without recking the cost. . . . This time we are showing the limit of our friendship; this time we are making our last possible bargain, and I hope that we can thus settle all our troubles with the United States peaceably.²⁴

The meaning of this ominous message was made doubly clear by the statement that “the cabinet has been meeting with the imperial headquarters for some days in succession.” In other words, if diplomacy failed, the alternative would be military action then being worked out by the cabinet in conjunction with the Japanese army and navy.

On the same day Tokyo forwarded to Washington the terms which, with some amendment, were submitted to the American government on November 20. So certain was the Japanese government that the settlement would be given American approval that Nomura was instructed to have it drawn up as an executive agreement so that it could take effect immediately and would not require the delay of Senate ratification.²⁵

It was emphasized that “it is absolutely necessary that all arrangements for the signing of this agreement be completed by the 25th of this month”²⁶—that Japan was working against a deadline, the meaning of which was still obscure.

On November 4 and 6 Nomura was advised that Kurusu had been sent to assist him in the negotiations, but that he brought with him no new instructions.²⁷ It was emphasized that “now that we are on the last lap of these negotiations, I do hope that he can help you in unravelling this bewildering maze, and through co-operation lead to a solution, and that right soon.”²⁸

On November 10 Nomura visited Roosevelt and urged upon him the view that although Japan had made many concessions, the United States “has shown no willingness to respond to our compromises.” He further stated that the Japanese people regarded the freezing of funds as a kind of economic blockade, adding that “there seem to be some who say that modern warfare is not limited to shooting alone.” He told the President that the reports from Japan were serious and threatening and that the only solution was to come to an agreement without further delay. The President, according to Nomura, continued to temporize, but stated the necessity of discovering a modus vivendi, by which Nomura inferred that he meant some kind of provisional agreement.²⁹

In a meeting with Hull November 12, Nomura again explained the Japanese proposals,³⁰ but the Secretary, as noted by Tokyo, seemed still to assume that the talks were of a preliminary nature. Nomura was asked to correct Hull’s impression, and other messages intercepted by American authorities reinforced the point that the situation could not be more urgent.³¹

A message from Tokyo to Hong Kong on November 14 showed, indeed, that there would be war if the discussions led nowhere. This message stated,

Though the imperial government hopes for great things from the Japan-American negotiations, they do not permit optimism for the future. Should the negotiations collapse, the international situation in which the empire will find herself will be one of tremendous crisis. Accompanying this, the empire’s foreign policy, as it has been decided by the cabinet, is:

a) We will completely destroy British and American power in China.

b) We will take over all enemy concessions and enemy important rights and interests (customs and minerals, etc) in China.

c) We will take over all rights and interests owned by enemy powers, even though they might have connections with the new Chinese government, should it become necessary.

In realizing these steps in China, we will avoid, insofar as possible, exhausting our veteran troops. Thus we will cope with a world-war on a long-time scale. Should our reserves for total war and our future military strength wane, we have decided to reinforce them from the whole Far Eastern area.³²

No one could possibly misinterpret this message. It meant that war had been decided upon if the negotiations failed, and it referred to Britain and America as “the enemy.”

Although under instructions to reach an agreement by November 25, Nomura on November 14 cautioned “patience for one or two months in order to get a clear view of the world-situation.” He stated,

As I told you in a number of messages, the policy of the American government in the Pacific is to stop any further moves on our part either southward or northward. With every economic weapon at their command, they have attempted to achieve their objective, and now they are contriving by every possible means to prepare for actual warfare. In short, they are making every military and every other kind of preparation to prevent us from a thrust northward or a thrust southward; they are conspiring most actively with the nations concerned and rather than yield on this fundamental political policy of theirs in which they believe so firmly, they would not hesitate, I am sure, to fight us. It is not their intention, I know, to repeat such a thing as the Munich conference which took place several years ago and which turned out to be such a failure. Already, I think, the apex of German victories has passed. Soviet resistance persists, and the possibility of a separate peace has receded, and hereafter this trend will be more and more in evidence.

Nomura spoke of the suspicion in this country that Japan was ready “to stab the United States right in the back.” He said that if Japan carried out

a venture southward for the sake of our existence and our lives, it naturally follows that we will have to fight England and the United States, and chances are also that the Soviet will participate. Furthermore, among the neutral nations, those of Central America are already the puppets of the United States, and as for those of South America, whether they like it or not, they are dependent for their economic existence on the United States and must maintain a neutrality partial thereto.

It is inevitable that this war will be long, and this little victory or that little victory, or this little defeat or that little defeat, do not amount to much, and it is not hard to see that whoever can hold out till the end will be the victor.³³

Thus, as plainly as he could, Nomura attempted to dissuade the war lords of Tokyo from embarking upon a course which would bring the might of the United States down upon them. He urged that a peaceful solution continue to be sought through the Washington conversations. “I believe that I will win out in the long run in these negotiations,” he said.³⁴

The following day Nomura reported that Hull was still standing pat on his demand that the tripartite pact “shall become a mere scrap of paper.” Although Nomura again endeavored to persuade the Secretary that there need be no clash between a Japanese-American peace and the continued existence of the Axis pact, Hull’s unyielding attitude compelled him to look ahead if relations “should unfortunately break down, that, as a consequence, we pursue an unrestricted course.” He inquired if Japan had made arrangements for a neutral power to take over its interests in the United States, and whether an exchange of embassy and consular staffs was being planned. In discussing an exchange of nationals, Nomura said, “Dependence on ships of neutral register . . . would be an exceedingly precarious undertaking should war actually be declared.”³⁵

On November 16 an ominous note was introduced in another Tokyo message to Washington which conveyed detailed instructions for the destruction of code machines “in the event of an emergency.”³⁶

On the same day Tokyo advised Nomura that

the fate of our empire hangs by the slender thread of a few days, so please fight harder than you ever did before. . . . In your opinion we ought to wait and see what turn the war takes and remain patient. However, I am awfully sorry to say that the situation renders this out of the question. I set the deadline for the solution of these negotiations . . . and there will be no change.³⁷

On November 17 Kurusu arrived by plane in Washington and was received by Hull and Roosevelt. When the special envoy had landed at San Francisco, he had optimistically expressed the hope of “making a touchdown” in his talks in Washington. His first statement to Roosevelt, however, emphasized that conditions in the Pacific were strained. He said:

The situation is so tense that we cannot tell when an explosion would occur and, even if it occurred, of what benefit would such a situation be to the United States and Japan? To be sure, Japan wishes that the Japanese-American negotiations would prove to be a success. However, the time element must be taken into consideration. Delaying the solution avails Japan nothing, since, in the meantime, conditions, both militarily and economically, would become less favorable to her if she is to defend herself.

In his conversation with the President, Kurusu said that Japan’s adherence to the tripartite pact, one of the principal stumbling-blocks to a settlement, meant that Japan alone would determine its obligations to go to war. The United States, he continued, “apparently interprets this to mean that Japan will wait until the United States is deeply involved in the battle on the Atlantic and then stab the United States in the back.” Kurusu said that the impression was erroneous, that Japan was not Germany’s tool, and that a settlement between Japan and the United States “would far outshine the tripartite pact.” Hull expressed the hope that Kurusu could attack the general problem from a different angle. He said that he and Nomura “always seem to come back to a certain point and then start going around and around the same circle.”³⁸

In new instructions November 17, Tokyo twice emphasized to its Washington emissaries that America seemed intent on disregarding Japan’s “sacrifices” during the four and one-half years of the China war.³⁹ The disillusion which had long since overtaken Nomura now began to creep over Kurusu. When Hull, on the 18th, spoke of the necessity of removing “the fundamental trouble,” Kurusu remarked, “If something is impossible to do, it simply can’t be done, regardless of what fancy words may be used to dress it up.”⁴⁰ Nevertheless, the next day in a message to Tokyo, he expressed hope of achieving some settlement, and counseled against “forming a hasty conclusion.”⁴¹

On November 19, however, Tokyo stated in terms stronger than ever before that a complete breakdown in relations was impending. In its message to Washington, it stated:

In case of emergency (danger of cutting off our diplomatic relations), and the cutting off of international communications, the following warning will be added in the middle of the daily Japanese language short wave news broadcast:

(1) In case of Japan–U.S. relations endangered: Higashi No Kazeame (east wind rain).

(2) Japan–U.S.S.R. relations: Kitanokaze Kumori (north wind cloudy).

(3) Japan–British relations: Nishi No Kaze Hare (west wind clear).⁴²

In another message the same day, Tokyo advised that if diplomatic relations were becoming dangerous it would add at the beginning and end of Japan’s intelligence broadcast the word “Higashi,” signifying that relations with America were imperiled; “Kita,” applying to a rupture of relations with Russia, and “Nishi,” if relations with Britain, including Thailand, Malaya, and the Netherlands East Indies, were affected.⁴³

Nomura, also reporting on November 19, said that of the three courses before the empire in relation to America—maintaining the status quo, breaking the deadlock by force of arms, or achieving a mutual nonaggression agreement—he was endeavoring to bring about the third. He said:

After exhausting our strength by four years of the China Incident, following right upon the Manchuria Incident, the present is hardly an opportune time for venturing upon another long-drawn-out warfare on a large scale. I think it would be better to fix up a temporary “truce” now in the spirit to “give and take” and make this the prelude to greater achievements to come later.⁴⁴

On November 22 Tokyo sent a significant message to Nomura and Kurusu urging them to work hard and try to bring about a solution and again stressing that they were working against a deadline. The dispatch said:

It is awfully hard for us to consider changing the date we set. . . . You should know this. However, I know you are working hard. Stick to our fixed policy and do your very best. Spare no efforts and try to bring about the solution we desire. There are reasons beyond your ability to guess why we wanted to settle Japanese-American relations by the 25th, but if within the next three or four days you can finish your conversations with the Americans; if the signing can be completed by the 29th (let me write it out for you—twenty-ninth); if the pertinent notes can be exchanged; if we can get an understanding with Great Britain and the Netherlands; and in short if everything can be finished, we have decided to wait until that date. This time we mean it, that the deadline absolutely cannot be changed. After that things are automatically going to happen.*⁴⁵

All of these communications were known to the leaders of the American government and to the Army and Navy high command almost as soon as or sooner than they were known to the Japanese representatives in Washington. They showed how far Japan was willing to go in reaching an agreement, and the point beyond which it felt that it could not go. From the middle of November on, certain of the messages showed a new and dangerous drift. They indicated that if an agreement were not soon reached, there would be a rupture of diplomatic relations, the usual prelude to an outbreak of hostilities. Finally, they showed that an irrevocable deadline had been fixed, and that after that things were “automatically going to happen.”

Responsible American officials might not be expected to guess exactly what would happen, but they had been given adequate warning of war in the event of a breakdown of negotiations and they knew that some Japanese plan undoubtedly pointing to a surprise belligerent stroke had been set in train, and that after the 29th it would be impossible for Japan to turn back. These inferences were to be drawn from any careful and reasonably intelligent reading of the code intercepts.

The duty therefore devolved upon the men who had taken it upon themselves to evaluate these intercepts either to reach an agreement with Japan, or, if for moral or political reasons that were regarded as impossible, to take all possible defensive precautions against Japanese belligerent action, and to be on the alert against a surprise blow from whatever quarter. The agreement could either have been in the nature of the discarded modus vivendi, designed to buy time until our Pacific forces could assume a proper posture of defense, or it could have been a settlement of the kind envisioned by Ambassador Grew—just arid equitable, entered in a spirit of conciliation, and not partaking of “so-called appeasement.”⁴⁶

The leaders of the American government followed neither course. They were then left with the responsibility—even more clearly and starkly etched by the Tokyo messages intercepted after November 22—to serve unequivocal notice on the field commanders to stand ready to repel attack.

*Italics supplied.