Also the urgency or not on dispatches sent to Pearl. To me the info I found didn't say any pertinent suggestions either.
MajorArmedMan
Well, since Japan invaded French Indochina without total regard to FDR's warning, FDR moved the U.S. Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor in preparation for thwarting the Japanese aggression. Seemingly because Japan used the peace negotiations as their advantage to advance their military and political goals, many people within the U.S. government know full well of this. However, many people believed that the Japanese would attack the Philippines, considering it was a U.S.-territory and that it was very closer to the Japanese home islands.
westsidedavid
The smoke had not settled before people in December 1941 began looking for someone to blame. It seemed absurd that Japan, the "little yellow ants," as one war movie was to call them, could have sailed close to the Hawaiian Islands undetected, and then swept down on Pearl Harbor with the results that the Japanese achieved. Even discounting the value of the American battleships (all of the battleships at Pearl Harbor were World War I vintage), the Japanese achieved a stunning victory. Had they wished to follow-up, they could have invaded and taken Hawaii, sent a single ship to disable the Panama Canal. or bombarded the West Coast with impunity.
Americans, startled by the losses involved,some 2,000 dead and every battleships in the Pacific Fleet put out of action. Almost immediately, there were whispers. It seemed beyond belief that the Japanese could have launched such a successful attack without negligence or worse by American officials. As soon as an investigation was called for, two strains of thought intruded: Would the investigation uncover the traitors? and Would the investigation cover up treason by insiders high in the government?
Fringe elements continue to argue that there was a conspiracy that left Pearl Harbor on inadequate alert that Sunday morning. Very few historians with mainstream credentials regard these claims as credible. The best explanation is an error in reasoning: A great deal of the evidence of what went on prior to December 7 is ambiguous. Almost everything that can be cited for high officials having advanced knowledge that specifically warned them that Japan was planning an attack on Pearl Harbor. Proponents of the advance-knowledge conspiracy theory read a vast amount of this evidence as supporting their conspiracy theory. This reflects their bias. They begin by dismissing the idea that the American diplomatic corps and the American military simply never "connected the dots." But by deeming this explanation to be impossible, they discount all evidence that disputes their conspiracy theory. They look for evidence that can be construed as supporting a conspiracy. Among mainstream historians, the process begins with a different question: does the whole body of available evidence support only an advanced knowledge conspiracy claim? Taken as a whole, the entirety of the evidence does not support the advanced knowledge conspiracy claim. Yes, there are bits and pieces that can be construed as supporting that theory, but there is so much other, inconsistent evidence that there is nothing amounting to a pattern.
Consider a comparable example: in a lottery game, a player can pick 9 numbers out of 81. (Think Sudoku.). He must pick all 9 of the correct numbers to win. Every card he gets has the number 1 through 81, arranged in a 9-by-9 square. He is told that the correct answer will involve picking 9 numbers so that no two numbers can be in the same row or the same column. He is even given specific clues: two of the correct numbers are 1 (row a, col. 1) and 81 (row i, col. 9). Notice: there are millions of combinations that satisfy the terms. Every card contains all of the correct numbers. The odds on picking the seven remaining numbers correctly are certainly not a sure thing. Until they are a sure thing, any given successful combination is unproven.
In the wake of the attack, Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short were brought before an extraordinary judicial panel headed by Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts. The Roberts Panel called itself a fact-finding body, rather than a judicial body, even though everyone involved knew that the Panel’s decision would be treated as a verdict. The significance on this label “fact-finding body” was critical. It meant that Kimmel and Short were stripped of "due process." They were not allowed counsel in the proceedings, nor were they allowed to cross-examine witnesses who provided evidence to the Panel.
With the nation still reeling from the shock that the Pacific Fleet had been completely mauled by the Japanese, the Roberts Panel faced incredible pressure to find someone to blame for the debacle. Given the restrictions on Kimmel’s and Short’s ability to defend themselves, the outcome of the Panel’s “investigation” was not surprising.
The Panel concluded that Kimmel and Short had neglect preparation for an air attack and had been derelict in carrying out their duties. Admiral Kimmel was demoted from the rank of Admiral (a 4-star rank), to Rear Admiral (2-star). While he was not forced out of the Navy, this action effectively ended his career, and he retired in 1942. Short suffered a similar fate, being reduced from Lieutenant General (3-star) to Major General (2 star).
The families of each officer have carried on a continuing effort to win a restoration in rank as a formal acknowledgement that these men were used as scapegoats.
As for any notion that Short or Kimmel was part of deliberate plot not to respond to warnings, I regard the idea as laughable. Men who have dedicated their lives to building a military career, at the very moment when the nation most needs good experienced military leaders do not throw all of that away.
Anonymous
Yes, Elvis sent it to them by semaphore from Mars. This was right before Admiral Yamamoto sailed off the edge of the flat earth.