Page 1
JOINT COMMITTEE EXHIBIT NO. 147
PART I OF PEARL HARBOR INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY COLONEL CARTER W. CLARKE,
PURSUANT TO ORAL INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF, U. S. ARMY
TESTIMONY AND FINDINGS CONCERNING HANDLING OF CERTAIN TOP SECRET DOCUMENTS
Top Secret
MIS/DC/CWC/EWG/dc 74195
Memorandum for the Chief of Staff
20 SEPTEMBER 1944
Subject: Investigation regarding the manner in which certain Top Secret
communications were handled.
The report of the investigation regarding the manner in which certain Top
Secret communications were handled is attached hereto as Tab. A. Briefly
summarized, the findings disclose the following:
a. That between 1 October 1941 and the attack on Pearl Harbor the Secretary of
State, Chief of Staff, the Secretary of War, the Chief of War Plans Division
and the A. C. of S., G-2 each received identical copies of the daily Magic
material that had been screened out by Col. Bratton, and each received a copy
of all of the Top Secret documents that are exhibits in this investigation.
b. During the same period the Navy Department was furnishing similar material
to the President through the President's naval aide.
c. On 28 November 1941 the so-called "Winds Code" was decoded. This code
provided for the warning of Japanese embassies and consulates throughout the
world in a voice broadcast that relations between Japan and the United States,
Japan and Russia or Japan and Great Britain, as the case might be, were to be
severed and that when this word was received all code papers were to be
destroyed. Arrangements were immediately made both by the Army Signal Corps
and, through the Army Signal Corps, with Federal Communications Commission for
listening for a message that would implement this code. However, prior to
Pearl Harbor neither the F. C. C. nor the Army Signal Corps intercepted an
implementing message.
d. Thirteen of the fourteen parts of Tokyo's reply to the American counter
proposals were received by the War Department in the evening of 6 December and
were delivered to the Department of State late that evening. The fourteenth
section, which was the concluding section of the Japanese reply, and a message
from Tokyo to the Japanese
Page 2
ambassadors in Washington instructing that this reply be presented to the
Secretary of State at one p. m., Washington time, were received in the War
Department before 0900 E. S. T., 7 December 1941. As soon as possible
thereafter Gen. Marshall, Gen. Gerow, Gen. Miles, Col. Bratton and Col. Bundy
met in Gen. Marshall's office at the War Department and at that time Gen.
Marshall decided to send a further warning message to the commanders in the
Pacific area. This information was conveyed by Gen. Marshall to Adm. Stark,
who concurred therein and asked that the Navy commanders be informed of the
Army message. This message was filed in the War Department Message Center at
1200 noon E. S. T., received R. C. A. Honolulu 33 minutes later but not
delivered to the Hawaiian Department until 7 hours and 25 minutes after its
receipt by R. C. A. Honolulu.
Clayton Bissell,
Major General,
A. C. of S., G-2
Enclosures:
Tab. A.
MIS/DC/EWG/dc 74195
20 September 1944
Memorandum for the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2:
Subject: Investigation regarding the manner in which certain Top Secret
communications were handled.
1. The undersigned was appointed by the A. C. of S., G-2 to conduct an
investigation regarding the manner in which certain Top Secret communications
were handled. Under authority of a letter of 9 September 1944 (AGPO-M-B 333.5
(7 Sep 44)) from The Adjutant General, which read as follows:
"It is desired that you designate officers of your Division to conduct an
investigation and interrogations, in accordance with the oral instructions
issued to you by the Chief of Staff regarding the manner in which certain Top
Secret communications were handled.
"The officers designated to conduct this investigation will be authorized to
administer oaths for this purpose."
The investigation was conducted on 14, 15 and 16 September, in Room 2C637 of
the Pentagon Building. Testimony under oath was taken of Major General Sherman
Miles, Acting A. C. of S., G-2 during the year 1941; Brigadier General Hayes
A. Kroner, Chief of the Intelligence Branch of the Military Intelligence
Division during the last half of 1941; Colonel Rufus Bratton, Chief of the Far
Eastern Section of the Military Intelligence Division during the latter half
of 1941; Colonel John T. Bissell, head of the Counter Intelligence Branch of
the Military Intelligence Division during the latter part of 1941; Colonel O.
K Sadtler, Chief of the Army Communications Service during the latter part of
1941; and Mr. William F. Friedman, principal cryptanalyst of the Signal
Intelligence Service during the latter part of 1941. Documentary evidence in
the nature of copies of 38 Top Secret decoded Japanese messages passing
between the Tokyo Government and various Japanese embassies in many parts of
the world in October, November and early December, 1941 were also introduced
into evidence.
Page 3
[8] 2. There were also introduced into evidence memoranda for the Chief of
Staff in the nature of Estimates of the Situation which were made by the then
Acting A. C. of S., G-2 the latter part 0f November and early December, 1941,
all of them immediately prior to Pearl Harbor day; the findings of fact of the
Roberts Report of January 1942; a telegram to the G-2, Hawaiian Department of
5 December 1941, signed Miles; a telegram signed Brink received in the War
Department 6 December 1941 at 1629 E. S. T.; a memorandum of 6 December 1941
signed Perry regarding Jap Washington Embassy burning code books the night of
5 December; telegram from Melbourne, Australia from Merlesmith received in the
War Department 7 December at 1950 E. S. T.; M, I. D. form containing
information received from the Orient dated 3 November 1941 containing
information purporting to have come from a Mr. Hirota; report of Headquarters,
Third Corps Area, dated 18 December 1941 entitled "Report of Rumors Concerning
Japanese Attack on Hawaii"; secret radiogram dated 7 July 1941 to the
Commanding Generals, the Caribbean Defense Command, Philippine Department,
Hawaiian Department and Fourth Army; radio message dated 27 October 1941 from
Manila, signed Brink; radiogram dated 29 October 1941 from Manila signed
Evans; copies of 5 radiograms sent from Tokyo to MILID between 12 July and 27
July 1941; and the following messages flowing between Commanding General,
Hawaii and the War Department: 27 November 1941 Chief of Staff to Commanding
General, Hawaii; 27 November 1941 G-2 War Department to G-2 Hawaii; 27
November 1941 Commanding General, Hawaii to Chief of Staff; 28 November 1941
The Adjutant General to Commanding General, Hawaii; 29 November 1941
Commanding General, Hawaii to The Adjutant General; 7 December, Chief of Staff
to Commanding General, Hawaii et al.
3. All the testimony taken was stenographically reported and transcribed.
4. All the testimony and evidence received have been considered and as a
result of this consideration I find the following facts:
a. That between 1 October and the afternoon of 7 December 1941 there were at
least 37 coded massages that were flowing between the Tokyo Government and
their embassies in various parts of the world which were intercepted by the
Signal Intelligence Service and were decoded. In addition there was at least
one copy of a telephone conversation between the Tokyo Government and the
Japanese Embassy in Washington. These intercepted and decoded messages were
Top Secret material that was designated as "Magic" in the latter part of 1941.
(Ex. #1, Bratton, p. 10. Sadtler, p. 1.)
b. At all times between 1 October 1941 and the time of the attack on Pearl
Harbor on 7 December 1941, the Top Secret material that is involved in this
investigation was handled as follows (Bratton p. 24; Miles p._):
It was delivered daily by the Signal Intelligence Service by hand of an
officer to the office of Colonel Rufus Bratton who was then Chief of the Far
Eastern Section of the Intelligence Branch of M. I. D. Col. Bratton then read
all of the material, screening out that which had intelligence value. The
other material he then burned. The screened material was then arranged by Col.
Bratton in separate piles, one for
Page 4
the Chief of Staff, one for the Secretary of War, one for the A. C. of
S., G-2, one for the Chief, War Plans Division and one for the Secretary of
State. Col. Bratton then bound each pile in a cardboard folder, inserted the
folder in the proper leather dispatch case, locked each dispatch case and
delivered it to the proper office, collecting at that
time the bags containing the previous day's output. These bags were brought by
Col. Bratton back to his office, opened and the material therein checked prior
to destruction by burning.
c. Between 1 October 1941 and the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor the
Secretary of State, the Chief of Staff, the Secretary of War, the Chief of War
Plans Division and the A. C. of S., G-2 each received identical copies of the
daily Magic material that had been screened out by Col. Bratton, and each
received a copy of each of the 38 Top Secret documents that are exhibits in
this investigation. In addition, for a short time immediately prior to Pearl
Harbor and for a short time thereafter, Gen. McNair, Commanding General of the
Army Ground Forces, also received daily copies of this Top Secret material.
(Bratton p. 7, 24, 25; Miles p._)
d. During this identical period the Navy Department was furnishing similar
material to various officers in the Navy Department and to the President
through the President's naval aide. (Bratton, p. 4- Miles p._)
e. From time to time during this period the Chief of Staff questioned Col.
Bratton as to his evaluation of certain of the Top Secret reports that are
exhibits in this investigation. (Bratton p. 5 and 12)
f. That on 28 November 1941 Top Secret Army message No. 25432 was decoded. The
decoding of this message read as follows (Ex. #2)
"From Tokyo
"To Washington.
"19 November 1941
"Regarding the broadcast of a special message in an emergency.
"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 a Japan-U. S. relations in danger:
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)
"This signal will be given in the middle and at the end as a weather forecast
and each sentence will be repeated twice. When this is heard, please destroy
all code papers, etc. This is as yet to be a completely Secret arrangement.
"Forward as urgent intelligence."
On 28 November 1941 Col. Bratton made arrangements for listening for Japanese
broadcasts that might include this code. These arrangements were made through
Col. Sadtler, then in the office of the Chief Signal Officer, who put Col.
Bratton in touch with a Mr. G. E. Sterling, then Chief of the National Defense
Operations Section of the Federal Communications Commission. The F. C. C. did
thereafter monitor Japanese broadcasts for the purpose of determining a if
Page 5
the Japanese sent a message using the "Winds" code. I am unable to find that a
Japanese message using the "Winds" code was intercepted by the F. C. C. or the
Army Signal Corps until after Pearl Harbor. (Bratton p. 10, 11; Miles p. _;
Sadtler, p. 2; Friedman, p. 7; Ex. #3)
I find that on 5 December 1941, Col. Sadtler was informed by Adm. Noyes, Naval
Communications Officer, that a Japanese message using the "Winds" code had
been intercepted the previous night, and that the message, decoded, meant that
Japanese-Great Britain relations were to be broken; that on 5 December 1941
Col. Sadtler so informed Gen Miles, Col. Bratton, Gen. Gerow, Col. Gaily and
Gen. Bedell Smith, then Secretary of the General Staff, but that Gen. Miles or
Col. Bratton never informed Gen. Marshall personally of the Sadtler
information. I do find, however, that Col. Bratton prior to this time had been
informed by the Navy that Commander Rochefort of the 14th Naval [5] District
knew all that our own Navy Department knew about the "Winds Code" message and
that on 5 December he caused the following message to be sent the Commanding
General, Hawaiian Department (Sadtler p. 2, 3,; Bratton p. 17, 18; Miles p._:
Ex. #4):
"CONTACT COMMANDER ROCHEFORT IMMEDIATELY THRU COMMANDANT FOURTEEN NAVAL
DISTRICT REGARDING BROADCASTS FROM TOKIO [sic] REFERENCE WEATHER."
I further find that Gen. Miles and Col. Bratton were on 5 December 1941 and
had been for some time prior thereto, expecting a break in Jap-Great Britain
relations. I further find that no officer of the Navy ever advised Gen. Miles
or Col. Bratton that any message implementing the Winds Code had been received
by the Navy. I und that if in fact such a message was intercepted, it was not
intercepted by the Army Signal Corps or F. C. C. (Bratton p. 11, 12,13,
Roundtable; Miles p._).
g. I find that 13 of the 14 sections of the Japanese reply, Top Secret Army
No. 25843 were received by the evening of 6 December and one copy of that part
of the Japanese reply was delivered by Col. Bratton to the watch officer on
duty at the Department of State late in the evening of 6 December, with
instructions to see that the document was delivered to the Secretary of State
immediately. (Bratton p. 17; Miles p._, Ex. #5)
h. I find that between 0830 and 0900 E. S. T. 7 December 1941 Col. Bratton was
at his office in the War Department and at that time received copies of
section 14 of the Japanese reply, Top Secret Army No. 25843, and also received
copies of Tokyo's instructions to deliver the reply at 1:00 p. m. 7 December
1941. Top Secret Army No. 25850; that Col. Bratton then immediately attempted
to contact the Chief of Staff and the Chief, War Plans Division at their
offices in the War Department but these officers were not in their offices at
that time; that Col. Bratton then telephoned Gen. Marshall's quarters and was
informed that Gen. Marshall had gone horseback riding; that Col. Bratton
requested Gen. Marshall's orderly to go out and find him at once and to ask
Gen. Marshall to call Col. Bratton on the telephone as soon as practicable as
Col. Bratton had an important message to
Page 6
deliver to him; that Col. Bratton then called Gen. Miles, reporting what steps
he, Col. Bratton, had taken and recommending that Gen. Miles come to the
office at once; that either Gen. Miles or Col. Bratton thereafter called Gen.
Gerow, then Chief of War Plans Division; that sometime between 1000 and 1100
E. S. T. Col. Bratton received a telephone call from Gen. Marshall and then
informed Gen. Marshall that [6] he, Col. Bratton, had a message of extreme
importance which Gen. Marshall should see at once and advised Gen. Marshall
that Col. Bratton would bring the message to Gen. Marshall's quarters if Gen.
Marshall so desired; that Gen. Marshall instructed Col. Bratton to report to
Gen. Marshall in Gen. Marshall's office in the War Department as the General
was on his way there; that Col. Bratton reported to Gen. Marshall in Gen.
Marshall's office in the War Department at about 1125 E. S. T., which was
shortly after Gen. Marshall's arrival; that shortly thereafter Gen. Miles
arrived; that the message, Top Secret Army No. 25850, instructing the Japanese
ambassadors to present Japanese reply, Top Secret Army No. 25843, to the
Department of State at 1300 E. S. T. that afternoon was laid before Gen.
Marshall and discussed; that the Chief of Staff then had on his desk the
lengthy Japanese reply, Top Secret Army No. 25843, which he read aloud to
those officers present; that the Chief of Staff asked all officers present for
an expression of opinion as to the meaning or significance of the message, Top
Secret Army No. 25850; that Gen. Miles and Col. Bratton both stated that they
believed there was important significance in the time of the delivery of the
reply, namely 1:00 p. m., that this was an indication that some military
action would be undertaken by the Japanese at that time, that they thought it
probable that the Japanese line of action would be into Thailand but that it
might be into any one or more of a number of other areas; that Gen. Miles
urged that the Philippines, Hawaii, Panama and the West Coast be informed
immediately that the Japanese reply would be delivered at one o'clock that
afternoon, Washington time, and that the commanders in the areas, indicated
should be on the alert; that Gen. Marshall then called Adm. Stark on the
telephone and told Adm. Stark over the telephone that he thought the Army
should send out a warning substantially as Gen. Miles urged; that after Adm.
Stark replied Gen. Marshall put down the telephone and stated that Adm. Stark
did not think any further warning necessary since all the forces had been
several times alerted; that Gen. Miles and Col. Bratton nevertheless continued
to urge Gen. Marshall to send the warning; that Gen. Marshall then wrote out
in pencil the warning message and there was some discussion at this particular
time as to whether or not the Philippines should be included; that Gen.
Marshall again got Adm. Stark on the telephone and read to Adm. Stark the
message he, Gen. Marshall, had just written; that Adm. Stark apparently
concurred and asked that the naval forces be also informed and Gen. Marshall
added a request to that effect at the bottom of his penciled [7] warning that
about this time Gen. Gerow and Col. Bundy arrived and Gen. Marshall again
asked each officer present, in succession beginning with Gen Miles, their
opinion as to the significance of the Japanese message, Army Top Secret No.
25850; that Gen. Miles said he thought it probably meant an attack on Thailand
but that the timing had some significance and that warning messages to our
people should be sent; that
Page 7
Gen. Gerow, Col. Bundy and Col. Bratton concurred; that Gen. Marshall then
gave Col. Bratton the message in Gen. Marshall's handwriting and instructed
Col. Bratton to take it immediately to the Message Center for transmittal;
that as Col. Bratton was about to leave there was some discussion as to
whether the penciled message should go to Gen. Gerow's office for typing first
but it was decided that as time was an important factor Col. Bratton should
take it in its draft form to the Message Center; that as Col. Bratton left the
room Gen. Gerow made a statement to the effect that if there was any question
of priority involved to give first priority to the Philippines; that Col.
Bratton took the message to Col. French, a Signal Corps officer then in charge
of the Message Center, explained to Col. French that it was Gen. Marshall's
desire that the message be transmitted to the addressees by the fastest
possible safe means, giving the Philippines first priority; that Col. French
then said he would give it his personal attention and that processing of the
message would commence immediately; that Col. Bratton then returned to the
office of the Chief of Staff and Gen. Marshall then directed Col. Bratton to
find out how long it would take for the delivery of the message to the
addressees; that Col. Bratton returned to the Message Center, talked the
matter over with Col. French, who informed Col. Bratton that the message would
be encoded in about three minutes, on the air in about eight minutes, and in
the hands of the addressees in about thirty minutes; that it was then 1150 E.
S. T.; that Col. Bratton returned to the Chief of Staff's office and so
reported to him. (Bratton p. 14, 15, 16, 17 and 23; Miles p._, Ex. #6, Ex. #7)
i. I find that the log of the warning message sent by the Chief of Staff to
the Commanding General, Hawaiian Department, is as follows (Ex. #8):
E. S. T. Honolulu time
Filed War Department Message Center ........... 12:00 noon 6:30 AM
Sent Western Union ............................ 12:17 PM 6:47 AM
Received RCA Honolulu ......................... ---- 7:33 AM
Delivered to Signal Officer, Honolulu ......... ---- 11:45 AM
Delivered to AGO, Hawaiian Department ......... ---- 2:58 PM
CARTER W. CLARKE,
Colonel, General Staff Corps,
Deputy Chief, Military Intelligence Service.
TESTIMONY OF COLONEL JOHN T. BISSELL
[1] Place: Room 2C637 Pentagon Building, Washington, D. C.
Date: 14 September 1944.
Time: 1310-1330.
Present: Colonel Carter W. Clarke.
Colonel John T. Bissell.
Lt. Col. E. W. Gibson.
Colonel John T. Bissell, having been sworn and warned of his rights by Colonel
Carter W. Clarke, gave the following testimony:
Col. CLARKE. State your name, rank, organization and station please.
Page 8
Col. BISSELL. John T. Bissell, Colonel, Field Artillery, Headquarters 89th
Division Artillery, Camp Butner, North Carolina.
Col. CLARKE. On what date did you become a member of G-2 Division, War
Department General Staff?
Col. BISSELL. I believe it was on the 25th day of May 1940.
Col. CLARKE. What were your duties at that time?
Col. BISSELL. I was assigned to the Counter Intelligence Group of the Military
Intelligence Division.
Col. CLARKE. In what position?
Col. BISSELL. I was Executive Officer of that Group.
Col. CLARKE. How long did you remain on those duties?
Col. BISSELL. I remained as Executive Officer until, I think July 1, 1941,
when I became the senior member of that Group.
Col. CLARKE. As Chief of the Counter Intelligence Group of M. I. D., what were
your principal duties?
Col. BISSELL. The principal duties that I had were the collection, evaluation
and dissemination of counter intelligence information.
Col. CLARKE. Would it be correct to state that your principal duties then
dealt with what we might call domestic intelligence rather than any foreign
intelligence?
Col. BISSELL. That is correct
[2] Col. CLARKE. Did you focus your attention on any particular enemy or
potential enemy?
Col. BISSELL. Yes, on the Germans and Japanese.
Col. CLARKE. By that I mean their agents in this country.
Col. BISSELL. Yes, and in our possessions.
Col. CLARKE. Were Honolulu and the Philippines included?
Col. BISSELL. They were.
Col. CLARKE. What was your chief source of information with regard to the
Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor?
Col. BISSELL. At that time it was from reports we got from the Philippines and
the F. B. I., principally.
Col. CLARKE. Did you have any knowledge of or access to any material which was
known as Magic or Ultra during that period prior Pearl Harbor?
Col. BISSELL. Prior to Pearl Harbor I did not.
Col. CLARKE. Did you know of its existence?
Col. BISSELL. I did.
Col. CLARKE. But you had no knowledge of the contents of any the material
produced?
Col. BISSELL. I never read any of it in the raw. I did receive summaries
pertaining to Japanese agents in this country.
Col. CLARKE. Did you ever discuss the contents of it with either A. C. of S.,
G-2 or the Chief of the Intelligence Group?
Col. BISSELL. I don't recall that I ever did.
Col. CLARKE. Did you ever discuss the Japanese situation with the Chief of the
Far Eastern Branch of the Intelligence Group?
Col. BISSELL. Only on one or two occasions prior to Pearl Harbor.
[3] Col. CLARKE. Did you receive any information from F. B. I. at any time
which would indicate that they had knowledge of any of this material or access
to it?
Col. BISSELL. No. Of course I did receive reports on the activities of
Japanese agents and attaches in the United States, but that was
Page 9
obtained by following those individuals, not from any translated codes.
Col. CLARKE. Did any of this information come from wire tapping sources, to
your knowledge?
Col. BISSELL. I don't believe so.
Col. CLARKE. In what form did you make available to the A. C. of S., G-2 and
to the Chief of Staff such information that you did receive?
Col. BISSELL. As I recall it, we prepared in the Group daily a short
memorandum if there was anything of any value.
Col. CLARKE. Was that sent to the Chief of Staff or just to the A. C. of S.,
G-2?
Col. BISSELL. It went to G-2. I am not absolutely certain in my own mind at
that time whether I had that system in operation or not, but when I left here
I had it going.
Col. CLARKE. Then you had no channels of contact with either the Chief of
Staff or the Chief of the War Plans Division except through the person of the
A. C. of S., G-2?
Col. BISSELL. That is correct.
Col. CLARKE. Did you ever receive from F. B. I. any information which would
lead you to believe that there was a possibility of any attack by the Japanese
on the U. S. or any of its possessions prior to Pearl Harbor?
Col. BISSELL. No.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did it ever come to your knowledge that certain Japanese
consulates were destroying codes and burning secret documents early in
December 1941?
Col. BISSELL. Yes I knew that.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you know it at the time?
[4] Col. BISSELL. Yes I knew it at the time.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. That was before Pearl Harbor?
Col. BISSELL. It was, I believe, the day of Pearl Harbor that the codes were
destroyed. They were burned in the Japanese Embassy here in Washington.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you know of any other places they were burning codes?
Col. BISSELL. No
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you ever hear or know, prior to Pearl Harbor, that the
Navy Department sent a message to the Commander-Chief of the Pacific Fleet on
December 3, 1941 stating that it was believed certain Japanese consulates were
destroying their codes and burning secret documents?
Col. BISSELL. I did not know that.
Col. CLARKE. Did you ever initiate any warning message to the corps areas or
department commanders with respect to sabotage prior Pearl Harbor?
Col. BISSELL. Yes I did.
Col. CLARKE. What did you base that on?
Col. BISSELL. I based that upon a directive that I got from the A. C. of S.,
G-2.
Col. CLARKE. In other words, you wrote the message at his direction.
Col. BISSELL I did, and took it to him for correction and editing.
Col. CLARKE Then you did not initiate it?
Page 10
Col. BISSELL. I executed it and carried it out. It was initiated b the A. C.
of S., G-2.
Col. CLARKE. Did you know of any message which was initiated by the Chief of
the Army Air Forces to the same effect?
Col. BISSELL. No I did not.
Col. CLARKE. Will you state briefly what your actions and activities were on
December 7.
Col. BISSELL. On that particular date I was at my house in Washington [5] and
happened to be listening to the radio in the afternoon. I heard the
commentator discuss the attack on Pearl Harbor. I went to the office
immediately and was there until some time that evening.
Col. CLARKE. Did you have any knowledge of any warning message which was sent
to the commanders on the morning of December 7?
Col. BISSELL. At that time, no.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Were you ever alerted to be watching for a Jap message in
code that might be given during a news broadcast?
Col. BISSELL. No. I knew about it after December 7th but not a the time.
TESTIMONY 0F RUFUS S. BRATTON
PART I
[1] Place: Room 2C637 Pentagon Building, Washington, D. C
Date: 14 September 1944.
Time: 1045-1200.
Present: Colonel Rufus S. Bratton.
Colonel Carter W. Clarke.
Lt. Col. E. W. Gibson.
Colonel Rufus S. Bratton, having been sworn and warned of his rights by
Colonel Carter W. Clarke, gave the following sworn testimony:
Col. CLARKE. Will you state your name, rank, organization and station please.
Col. BRATTON. Rufus S. Bratton, O-3726. Headquarters, Commandant, Headquarters
3rd U. S. Army ETO.
Col. CLARKE. When were you first assigned to duty in the G_2 section of the
War Department General Staff?
Col. BRATTON. In the fall of 1936.
Col. CLARKE. And you continued in that duty until when?
Col. BRATTON. I continued on duty in one capacity or another in G-2 until the
fall of 1943.
Col. CLARKE. From the time you arrived here until Pearl Harbor on December 7,
1941 what were your duties?
Col. BRATTON. I was at first assistant to the Chief of the Far Eastern Section
of the Intelligence Branch and later succeeded him to that office.
Col. CLARKE. Who was that? Mason?
Col. BRATTON. Col. Homer Slaughter. I later succeeded him to that office as
Chief of the Far Eastern Section. At that time my immediate superior was Col.
Faye Brabson. He was later succeeded by Col. Charles Mason; he in turn by Col.
Hayes Kroner. Upon
Page 11
the latter's designation as Chief of M. I. S. I became Chief of the
Intelligence Branch. I think that is accurate.
Col. CLARKE. Was one of your duties both as the Assistant and as Chief of the
Far Eastern Section, the handling of this so-called Magic or Ultra material?
[2] Col. BRATTON. That is correct. When I first arrived in G-2 a copy of the
day's output was placed on my desk for such information and action as was
necessary or advisable. At that time the production of Magic was on a very
limited scale and it was a combined product of naval communications, I
believe, and the Army SIS. As we progressed in solving various codes and
ciphers the quantity and quality of this material naturally improved and it
became quite voluminous, and its study and evaluation occupied a large part of
my time as Chief of the Far Eastern Section.
Col. CLARKE. Will you state how this material was handled from the time it was
received from the Signal Corps, who saw it besides yourself, and what
selections were made to go to your immediate chief, also to the A. C. of S.,
G-2 and to the Chief of Staff.
Col. BRATTON. Initially this material reached me through the Chief of the
Operations & Training Branch of G-2. Later on this office was eliminated as a
transmitter of this material and I dealt directly with the SIS and their
counterpart in Navy communications. The material in later years was broken
down as to source or type of code by the Army and Navy so that the Army worked
on one type and the Navy on another. Normally the material was collected and
coordinated by the Army SIS before it was presented to me. Occasionally, in
matters of great interest or importance, an officer of the Navy could bring me
a message direct, to save time.
Col. CLARKE. How many copies of this did you receive of each message?
Col. BRATTON. Initially I received no copy of any message. I simply received a
statement showing that a message had been sent from one diplomatic post to
another diplomatic post on such and such a date, followed by a brief summary
of its contents. Later on, to further develop this very valuable source of
intelligence, arrangements were made whereby I received exact copies of the
decoded or deciphered message.
Col. CLARKE. Do you remember about what date that was, sir?
Col. BRATTON. We started this latter practice, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, early in 1941 or late in 1940. It then became my duty to see that the
proper officials of the War Department had access to the intelligence
contained in these decoded and deciphered messages. This entailed so much
traveling around on my part from one office to another that it was a waste of
time. So at the direction of the Chief [3] of Staff, transmitted to me through
the A. C. of S., G-2. I started the system of having copies made_my office
having a very limited number of officers_and instituted a check stem whereby
all copies were returned to me for destruction. This subsequently proved
impracticable because of lack of clerical help and other assistance in the Far
Eastern Section, and arrangements were made with the SIS and their counterpart
in naval communications to have some six copies of each decoded or deciphered
message delivered to me daily for study and evaluation. By this time the
volume of
Page 12
this work had increased tremendously. Many of the messages were purely
administrative in character and were of no interest from a intelligence point
of view. They were all gone over carefully, however, to make sure that I
missed no item which would be of intelligence value. Those that had no
intelligence value I destroyed by burning. The others were variously
processed.
Col. CLARKE. Were you assigned the duty of selecting the material that went to
the A. C. of S., G-2 and to the Chief of Staff and Secretary of War?
Col. BRATTON. I was.
Col. CLARKE. By whom?
Col. BRATTON. By the A. C. of S., G_2.
Col. CLARKE. Then you personally made the selection of what part of this
material he saw and the Chief of Staff saw?
Col. BRATTON. Yes, they both saw the same material.
Col. CLARKE. In other words, if you decided that a message was of sufficient
importance to be seen by the A. C. of S., G-2, it was also of sufficient
importance to be seen by the Chief of Staff and Secretary of War. Is that
correct?
Col. BRATTON. Not always, but the reverse was always true. If the message was
important enough to be seen by the Chief of Staff and Secretary of War, I of
course saw to it that the A. C. of S., G-2 saw the same message so that he
could talk to the Chief of Staff intelligently about it.
Col. CLARKE. Did anyone else in G-2 see this material besides you and the A.
C. of S., G-2?
[4] Col. BRATTON. Initially no, but as the volume increased it became
necessary for me to have assistance in handling it, and with the knowledge and
consent of the A. C. of S., G-2, certain trusted clerical help and certain of
my officer assistants helped me in handling it.
Col. CLARKE. Who made the selection of the material that went to the State
Department?
Col. BRATTON. Initially there was no agreement on this. Frequently the Navy
Department would take the same message to the State Department that we thought
would be of value to them. As it was a duplication of effort we finally came
to an agreement that the Army would furnish the Secretary of State with
material thought to be of interest to the State Department and that the Navy
would serve the President likewise.
Col. CLARKE. Do you recall about what date that arrangement became effective?
Col. BRATTON. Not exactly, but it was sometime early in 1941 when a written
agreement was drawn up between the A. C. of S., G-2 and the Chief of Naval
Intelligence, a copy of which was placed in the G-2 files.
[5] Col. CLARKE. Initially you made a selection of what was to go to the State
Department or the President and the Navy made a similar selection. Is that
correct?
Col. BRATTON. That is correct.
Col. CLARKE. When did you start giving all the material produced to the State
Department and to the President?
Col. BRATTON. I am quite positive that at no time was all of the material
given to the President for the simple reason that the bulk
Page 13
of it would have been of no interest or value to him. To the best of my
knowledge and belief, the State Department was never given all of the material
when I was responsible for its transmission. In other words, I made the
selection of what was to go to the Secretary of State and it was left to my
discretion to determine the material that would be of interest to him.
Col. CLARKE. In the period from July 1, 1941 up to and including Pearl Harbor,
did you ever discuss any individual message or group of messages with either
the A. C. of S., G-2 or the Chief of Staff?
Col. BRATTON. Oh yes, on innumerable occasions, with both.
Col. CLARKE. Was the Chief of Staff inclined to take your evaluation on this
material or did he want to act on it and place his own interpretation on it?
Col. BRATTON. He almost invariably asked me for my interpretation and
evaluation.
Col. CLARKE. What were your relationships with what was then known as War
Plans Division? Did you ever discuss this material with the Chief of that
Division?
Col. BRATTON. Yes, by direction of the Chief of Staff. They had access in the
latter stages of this production and dissemination to exactly the same
material that went to the A. C. of S.. G-2, to the Chief of Staff and to the
Secretary of War.
Col. CLARKE. Who in that Division had that besides the Chief, do you recall?
Col. BRATTON. Initially, at the direction of the Chief of Staff, I took the
message that I wanted the Chief of the War Plans Division to read, directly to
him, and when he had read it and after discussing it with him_if there was any
discussion_removed the message from his desk, took it back to my office and
destroyed it. Later on the Chief of the War Plans Division insisted that
certain of his section chiefs should have access to the material also. This
was approved by the Chief of Staff, and I then made it a practice to deliver
this material in a padlocked leather case to the Executive officer of WPD,
obtaining a receipt from him for certain numbered messages. After they had
been read by the proper officers in WPD they were returned to me either the
same day, in the locked bag, or on the following day when I delivered that
day's messages.
Col. CLARKE. Was there ever prepared in the Far Eastern Section of G-2 any
summary or evaluation which was based exclusively on the contents of this
material?
Col. BRATTON. Yes.
Col. CLARKE. Do you recall any particular one?
Col. BRATTON. I don't recall any particular one but in the early stages of
this work I very frequently submitted to the Chief of Staff, through the A. C.
of S., G-2, a staff memorandum [6] based upon one or more messages that I had
received, concealing the source by some agreed upon code word, so that the
reader would know where I had secured the information which I was evaluating.
Later on, as this material became of increasing value, the recipients, that is
the Secretary of War, the Chief of Staff, the A. C. of S., G-2 and the Chief
of the War Plans Division, deemed it advisable to have access to the raw
material themselves so that they could arrive at their own independent
conclusions as to its meaning. This was how the practice developed of
delivering the raw material to certain officers desig-
Page 14
nated by the Chief of Staff. Frequently, even after this practice was
instituted, I submitted memoranda to various officers in connection with such
and such a message, calling their attention to certain implications or trends
indicated therein.
Col. CLARKE. From the period November 1,1941, when the tension increased
between the United States and Japan, was there any special handling of this
material?
Col. BRATTON. As the tension between Japan and the United States grew we all
took much greater precautions in processing and in otherwise handling the
material.
Col. CLARKE. Did you have conferences with your opposite numbers in the Navy
and in the War Plans Division regarding the interpretation and evaluation of
this material?
Col. BRATTON. Yes. I had almost daily conferences with my opposite number in
ONI and with the Chief of the War Plans Division as to the true significance
of the material under study. I may say at this point that there was complete
cooperation and collaboration between my opposite number in ONI, Commander
McCullem [sic], and myself.
Col. CLARKE. Did you agree on the interpretation of this material? In other
words, was your evaluation agreed upon?
Col. BRATTON. We were for the most part in complete agreement in our
evaluations of the material. Where there were differences of opinion we always
consulted and came to an understanding as to how we would present these
opinions to our respective chiefs. In the event of any major difference of
opinion as to interpretation I always gave the A. C. of S., G-2 a summary of
the Navy's viewpoint along with my own, and I believe that my opposite number
in ONI did likewise.
Col. CLARKE. In the handling of this material, both in evaluation and [7]
safeguarding and what not, did you deal directly with the A. C. of S., G-2 or
did you go through the Chief of the Intelligence Group?
Col. BRATTON. Initially I went through the Chief of the Intelligence Group,
but as tension grew and time became the important factor, a his direction I
went straight to the A. C. of S., G-2 first and informed the Chief of
Intelligence Branch afterward of my action and the nature of the information
that I had transmitted.
Col. CLARKE. To the best of your knowledge and belief, the Chief of Staff was
kept completely informed of all information and intelligence which was
available to G-2 from this source. Is that correct?
Col. BRATTON. Completely.
Col. CLARKE. I wish also to clear this one point up. I understood you to say
that it was at the direction of the Chief of Staff that this raw material we
served to him and to the Chief of the War Plans Division.
Col. BRATTON. That is correct.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Colonel, you used the term "early stages" of this thing_I
wish we could put an approximate date to "early stages" as you referred to
early stages.
Col. BRATTON. Well, by early stages I mean during the years 1936 and 1937
before the quantity and quality of the material materially increased.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. May I interrupt? Wouldn't you say that your early stages was
from the time you came in, in 1936, up to the bombing of the Panay?
Page 15
Col. BRATTON. Well I wouldn't extend the early stages to as late a date as the
bombing of the Panay_earlier than that.
Col. CLARKE. In other words, you would say from the summer of 1936 to the
summer of 1937 would be the early stages?
Col. BRATTON. Let me put it this way. By early stages I mean the period before
our relations with Japan became strained.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Approximately when was it that the War Plans Division started
getting this Top Secret material?
Col. BRATTON. You mean copies of the raw material?
[8] Lt. Col. GIBSON. Yes.
Col. BRATTON. I am sorry, sir, I can't answer that definitely. My memory won't
permit a definite answer. I would say not earlier than the summer of 1941. I
would like to amplify that, however, with the statement that prior to the
summer of 1941 various memoranda, written by me or by the A. C. of S., G-2,
based upon this material were submitted to WPD.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. When these copies went to the State Department or War Plans
they were not allowed to keep them on file? You went around and got them?
Col. BRATTON. They were returned to me as soon as the proper officials of the
State Department and WPD had seen and initialed them. They did not remain in
the files of either office.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Were they allowed to make copies of this?
Col. BRATTON. Not by me or any other officer of the War Department that I know
of.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. You as Chief of the Intelligence Branch or your Chief of the
Far Eastern Unit knew generally, did you not, that the United States policy in
the Pacific in 1941 was in conflict with policies of the Japanese Government?
Col. BRATTON. Of course.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you ever have any knowledge of a letter from the
Secretary of the Navy addressed to the Secretary of War on or about 24 January
1941 wherein the Secretary of War was warned that hostilities might be
initiated at any time by the Japanese by an attack on Pearl Harbor, or that in
substance? Did you ever hear of any such letter at that time?
Col. BRATTON. To the best of my knowledge and belief I have never seen or
heard of any such letter.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. The Chief of Staff never advised you of the existence of any
such letter?
Col. BRATTON. I have no recollection of any such advice.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you ever attend any of the what were then termed War
Council meetings?
Col. BRATTON. No, I did not.
[9] Lt. Col. GIBSON. In any of your conversations with the Chief of staff did
he ever discuss anything that went on at any conferences he had with his
counterpart of the Navy or regarding the Japanese situation?
Col. BRATTON. Not that I recall.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Were you ever told, or did you know, in the latter art of
November, of a message sent by the Chief of Naval Operations to Admiral
Kimmel, which was concurred in by General Marshall, to the effect that we
might anticipate a surprise and an aggressive Japa-
Page 16
nese attack, or to be prepared for such a thing, or anything of that
substance?
Col. BRATTON. Yes, I saw such a message. It was dispatched, to the best of my
recollection, on or about the 24th of November.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. From the Chief of Naval Operations to Admiral Kimmel?
Col. BRATTON. That is right.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Was that message brought to the attention of General Miles at
that time or General Kroner?
Col. BRATTON. I think so. I have no way of_
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Do you recall how you acquired your knowledge of the
existence of such a message?
Col. BRATTON. I believe that I first learned of the message through my
opposite number in ONI, the Chief of the Far Eastern Division. I later saw and
read a copy of the message.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you know of General Marshall's message of the 27th of
November to General Short and other commanders in that general area? A warning
message so-called?
Col. BRATTON. Yes.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you receive at any time during the first week of December
1941 any information either from the Navy or from our own military attaches to
the effect that Jap consulates were burning documents and codes on or about
the third of December?
Col. BRATTON. I can't recall receiving this information from any local source.
I do remember, however, that in various Japanese messages detailed
instructions were issued from Tokyo to their consulate and diplomatic
officials as to the methods to be used by the latter in destroying their [10]
codes and ciphers when directed to do so.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. The Roberts report states that on December 3 1941 the Navy
Department sent a message to the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet that
it was believed certain Japanese consulates were destroying their codes and
burning secret documents. Did you at that time ever know of such a message
being sent by the Navy?
Col. BRATTON. No, to the best of my knowledge and belief this is the first
time I have heard of it.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Were you aware of the bulletin of December 1, 1941 dealing
with the Japanese naval situation, issued by the Director of Naval
Intelligence?
Col. BRATTON. Yes, this looks very familiar. I believe that I had access to
this or a similar document and used it as the basis of a memorandum for the
Chief of Staff, the A. C. of S., G-2 and the Chief of WPD to keep them
informed as to where the Navy thought the bulk of the Japanese naval forces
were located.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Colonel, I have here a whole series of these Top Secret
messages, or copies of them rather, and I just want to get in the record
whether you knew of these at the time. They are Army Nos. 23570, 23631, 23673,
23859, 24373, 24655, 24656, 24878, 25138, 25344, 25390, 25392, 25432, 25435,
25441, 25445, 25446, 25496, 25497, 25548, 25554, 25605, 25644, 25659, 25715,
25725, 25727, 25730, 25731, 25762, 25773, 25783, 25785, 25807, 25817, 25823,
25843, 25850. Have you seen these communications?
Col. BRATTON. Yes I have seen all of these communications before.
Page 17
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Calling your attention to this No. 25432, after you received
that did you make some arrangements for listening for broadcasts?
Col. BRATTON. Yes. I did, through Col. Sadtler, then in the office of the
Chief Signal officer, who put me in touch with an official of the FCC, a Mr.
Sterling, I believe.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you ever receive, prior to Pearl Harbor, word from the
FCC that such a code message had been put out by the Japanese?
Col. BRATTON. I did not, though I was in daily telephone communication with
Mr. Sterling or his assistant in connection with this matter. Their
understanding was that immediately upon [11] receipt of any such message I was
to be informed by telephone, day or night. They had my office phone number and
my house phone number. I did get from them on one or two occasions messages
resembling the Wind Code, but which upon examination proved to be not in that
code.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did the Navy ever give you any information of any such code
message being put out?
Col. BRATTON. No, although I did discuss with them certain code messages that
had been received which resembled the expected Wind Code messages.
Col. CLARKE. Did Col. Sadtler ever tell you that it was in?
Col. BRATTON. I cannot remember that he did. I have a vague recollection of a
conversation with him about a code message indicating a break in relations
between Japan and Great Britain. This, however, was beside the point. Such a
break had been expected by all of us for some time. The code message we were
waiting for was one indicating a break between Japan and the U. S. It never
came through that I know of.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you know of any message being sent by G-2 to the 14th
Naval District to check up on some such alleged message prior to Pearl Harbor?
Col. BRATTON. No, I do know, however, that Gen. Miles sent a message to Gen.
Short, or to Gen. Short's G-2 directing him to get in touch with Commander
Rochefort of the Navy with respect to this type of message as the Navy was
completely aware of all the facts in the case.
Col. CLARKE. Well that message actually went to G-2 in Hawaii.
Lt. COL. GIBSON. I show you No. 25138 and ask what your evaluation of that
message was, if you remember.
Col. BRATTON. My evaluation of this message at the time I read it was that
Japan intended taking military and/or naval action in the Pacific on or after
the dates indicated.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. And was that evaluation given by you to Gen. Miles?
Col. BRATTON. I believe so. I remember that during this period Gen. Miles and
I discussed at some length the meaning or implication of each and all of these
messages.
[12] Lt. Col. GIBSON. Was that true also of you and the Chief of Staff?
Col. BRATTON. Not in every case.
Page 18
Lt Col. GIBSON. Do you recollect whether it was true or not in this particular
case, referring to No. 25138?
Col. BRATTON. I don't remember definitely. I am under the impression that I
discussed this particular message both with Gen. Miles and Gen. Marshall, and
Gen. Gerow.
It. Col. GIBSON. Would you say the same is true of message No. 25644?
Col. BRATTON. No, but I can state that all three of the officers just
mentioned were given copies of this in the present form.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Also on No. 25390. What interpretation or evaluation did you
place on that particular message?
Col. BRATTON. I at this time do not recall the evaluation I gave that message.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I call your attention also to No. 25554 and 25555. What was
your interpretation of this message? Particularly I call your attention to the
last sentence thereof.
Col. BRATTON. This message, as is indicated in the text thereof, is an effort
on the part of the Japanese Government to inform their diplomatic
representative in Germany as to Japanese inability to successfully negotiate a
pact with the United States and is an expression of the opinion of the
Japanese Government that the United States was and would be allied with
England, Australia, the Netherlands an China against Japan.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you at this time, Colonel, consider it a capability of
the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor?
Col. BRATTON. Yes. Many of us considered and discussed the feasibility of such
an attack_an attack on our West Coast, an attack on Alaska, an attack on the
Canal Zone, an attack on Hawaii and other Pacific installations of ours, the
Dutch or the British governments.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. From a reading of these messages at that time did you come to
the conclusion that the Japs were about to undertake a attack on some of the
United States installations?
Col. BRATTON. It was apparent that there was strong likelihood of some such
attack. It was also apparent that the Japanese immediate major objective would
be the British and Dutch [13] possessions in the west Pacific. I believed at
that time that any attack on any American installation would be in the nature
of a diversion or have for its purpose the prevention of our going to the
assistance of the Dutch or British.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Had you talked that thought over with Gen. Miles?
Col. BRATTON. I did.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. General Kroner?
Col. BRATTON. As to Gen. Kroner, my memory is faulty, but I discussed this
feature on many occasions with Gen. Miles, with Gen. Gerow and with the Chief
of Staff when asked my opinion in the matter.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you inform the Chief of Staff that it was a capability of
the Japs to attack Pearl Harbor?
Col. BRATTON. In various G-2 estimates submitted to the Chief of Staff over a
period of many months an attack on Hawaii had always been listed as one of the
Japanese capabilities against us.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I notice in the estimate dated 29 November 194 that the
capability of the attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't included. I wonder how that
happened, if you have any recollection of it?
Page 19
Col. BRATTON. In reply to that I can only say that those of us in the Army who
were studying this situation always listed, mentally at least, an attack on
Hawaii as a capability, but in our discussions of the situation with our
counterparts in the Navy it was always emphasized by the latter that their
forces in the Pacific were alert and so stationed as to make such a Japanese
attack impracticable or suicidal, and we therefore relegated such an attack to
the realm of remote possibility.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. At that time did you feel that there was a fairly reasonable
probability that Japan was going to attack the United States in the reasonably
near future, I mean at the last of November or the first of December 1941?
Col. BRATTON. Yes, and I had felt for some time_that is over a period of
several years_that war between Japan and the United States was inevitable.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Had you so informed Gen. Miles and the Chief of staff [14]
that you, in the last of November or first of December 1941, felt it was
probable that the Japs were going to attack the United States in the near
future?
Col. BRATTON. Not in that form, but I repeatedly expressed the opinion to my
superiors that Japan intended to take some form of aggressive action which
would involve her in a war with us.
Col. CLARKE. I would like to ask one question here before we get these people
back. On the morning of December 7 when you got the famous message that they
were going to deliver their note at one clock, will you recount briefly the
actions which you took with reference to that message and also the actions of
Gen. Miles and Gen. Marshall?
Col. BRATTON. Will you permit me to refer to a memorandum which I made at the
time for the record?
Col. CLARKE. Sure.
Col. BRATTON. The message in question, that is the deciphered message in
question, was delivered to me from the Navy sometime between 0830 and 9000
that morning. It was immediately apparent that it was of such importance that
it had to be communicated to the Chief of staff, the A. C. of S., G-2 and the
Chief, WPD with the least practicable delay. Neither of these officers were in
their offices at that time. I called Gen. Marshall's quarters by telephone and
was informed that he had gone horseback riding. I requested his orderly to go
out and find him at once and ask him to call me on the telephone as soon as
practicable as I had an important message to deliver to him. I then called
Gen. Miles and reported the step that I had taken to him and recommended that
he come down to the office at once. I do not remember whether I called Gen.
Gerow or whether Gen. Miles called him, but we had some discussion as to which
one of us would do it and I don't remember now which of us did, but in any
event Gen. Gerow was summoned to the office. I waited for the telephone call
from Gen. Marshall, which I received some time between ten and eleven. I
informed him that I had a message of extreme importance which he should see at
once and told him that I would bring it to his quarters if he so desired. He
said to report to him in his office as he was on his way there. I reported to
him in his office at about 1125 immediately upon his rival. Shortly thereafter
Gen. Miles arrived. The message was laid before Gen. Marshall and discussed.
We were all asked by the
Page 20
Chief of Staff for an expression of opinion as to the meaning or significance
of the message, in connection with [15] the length Japanese ultimatum which
the Chief of Staff had on his desk and read aloud to us at this time. Gen.
Miles and I stated that we believed there was important significance in the
time of the delivery of the reply, one p. m., an indication that some military
action would undertaken by the Japanese at that time. We thought it probable
that the Japanese line of action would be into Thailand but that might be into
any one or more of a number of other areas. Gen. Mil urged that the
Philippines, Hawaii, Panama and the West Coast informed immediately that the
Japanese reply would be delivered at one o'clock that afternoon, Washington
time, and that they, the commanders in the areas indicated, should be on the
alert.
PART II
Place: Room 2C637
Pentagon Building, Washington, D. C.
Date: 15 September 1944.
Time: 1130-1200 and 1340-1453.
Present: Colonel Rufus S. Bratton.
Colonel Carter W. Clarke.
Lt. Col. E. W. Gibson.
[16] Col. BRATTON. General Marshall then called Adm. Stark on the telephone
and told him over the phone that he thought we should send out a warning as
indicated above. After Adm. Stark replied, Gen. Marshall put down the
telephone and stated that the Admiral did not think any further warning
necessary since all the forces had already been several times alerted. Gen.
Miles and I nevertheless urged Gen. Marshall to send the warnings. Gen.
Marshall then wrote out in pencil the warning message. There was some
discussion at this time, I believe, as to whether or not the Philippines
should be included. Gen. Marshall again got Adm. Stark on the telephone and
read to him the message he had just written out. Adm. Stark apparently
concurred and asked that the naval forces be also informed. Gen. Mar shall
added a request to that effect at the bottom of his penciled warning. At about
this time Gen. Gerow and Col. Bundy arrived. Gen Marshall again asked us, in
succession beginning with Gen. Miles, our opinion as to the significance of
the Japanese message. Gen. Miles said he thought it probably meant an attack
on Thailand but that the timing had some significance and that warning
messages to our people should be sent. Gen. Gerow, Col. Bundy and I concurred.
Gen Marshall then gave me the message in his handwriting and instruct me to
take it immediately to the Message Center for transmittal. As I was about to
go out of the door there was some discussion as to whether it should go to
Gen. Gerow's office for typing first, but it was decided that as time was an
important factor, I was to take it in its draft form to the Message Center. As
I left the room Gen. Gerow made a statement to the effect that if there was
any question of priority involved, to give first priority to the Philippines.
I took the message to Col. French, the Signal Corps officer in charge of the
Message Center, explained to him that it was Gen. Marshall's desire that the
message be transmitted to the addressees by the fastest possible safe means,
giving the Philippines first priority. Col. French said that
Page 21
he would give it his personal attention and processing of the message would
commence immediately. I then returned to the office of the Chief of Staff. The
latter directed me to find out how long it would he for the delivery of the
[17] message to the addressees. I returned to the Message Center and talked
the matter over with Col. French who informed me that the messages would be
encoded in about tree minutes, on the air in about eight minutes, and in the
hands of the addressees in about 30 minutes. I looked at my watch at this time
and saw that it was 1150 a. m. I returned to the Chief of Staff's office and
reported to him the information as to speed of delivery that had been given me
by Col. French.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did this reply from Japan (No. 25843) start coming in on the
6th of December, do you have any recollection as to that?
Col. BRATTON. I believe that the message started coming in to the Navy on the
6th. My recollection is that I transmitted a copy to the Secretary of State
that night.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Had you conferred with Gen. Miles or the Chief of Staff
previously as to when the Japanese reply might be expected?
Col. BRATTON. We knew that some such message was coming. We course had no way
of telling when it would be forthcoming; it might have been a question of
hours, it might be a question of days.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Calling your attention to message No. 25445, which apparently
was received by you the 28th or 29th of November, you then had some knowledge
that a reply might be expected within two or three days from that time. Is
that correct?
Col. BRATTON. That is correct.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Anyway, the first thing you did when you got the message on
December 7 was to phone Gen. Marshall?
Col. BRATTON. Yes, I called Gen. Marshall at his quarters.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I call your attention to the message sent to the G-2 Hawaiian
Department on 5 December, signed Miles, requesting that Commander Rochefort,
14th Naval District, be contacted regarding broadcasts from Tokyo reference
weather. How was it that this telegram happened to be sent?
Col. BRATTON. When we received the Japanese message concerning the code to be
used in weather broadcasts, I discussed the matter with my opposite number in
the Navy, Commander McCullom, and his assistant, Lt. Kramer. They informed me
that Commander Rochefort was their man in Hawaii, that he had [18] all the
information at that we had and the same intercepts. They stated that he could
explain in detail to the commanding general or his G-2 the significance of the
code and suggested that I have our G-2 in Hawaii get in touch with Commander
Rochefort immediately as a means of saving time. In other words, we could get
the desired information to the commanding General in Hawaii or his G-2 much
faster and in much greater detail and with far greater security than by means
of a long and involved explanatory message which we would have been forced to
send through the Army communication system.
Lt Col. GIBSON. I want to refer to this so-called Winds message. Did Col. Otis
K. Sadtler of the Signal Corps ever, prior to Pearl Harbor, notify you that
the Japanese had implemented the Wind Code by broadcasting a message in
accordance with that code?
Page 22
Col. BRATTON. As I have stated before, I cannot remember that he did, although
I believe he did speak about one indicating a break between Japan and Great
Britain.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you know a naval officer by the name of Kramer who at the
time of early December 1941 was an assistant to Commander McCullom of ONI
particularly being interested in communications work?
Col. BRATTON. Yes, I knew him well and was in constant communication with him
at this time both orally, in person and by telephone.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did Lt. Kramer at this time ever notify you that the Navy had
been advised by the FCC that a so-called Winds message had been intercepted by
the FCC monitoring station?
Col. BRATTON. No. We discussed on one or two occasions messages resembling
those in the Wind Code but as far as I know no actual Wind Code message ever
came through prior to Pearl Harbor.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I show you a copy of a cable sent 27 November to Commanding
General, Hawaiian Dept., containing instructions of how to act in case
hostilities between Japan and the United States occur and notifying him that
negotiations with Japan appear to be terminated. Did you know of such a cable
being sent?
Col. BRATTON. Not prior to the outbreak of hostilities. However, I have seen a
copy of the message since that date.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I show you now paraphrase of a cable dated November 27, [19]
1941 sent to the G-2's of corps areas, Caribbean Defense Command, Hawaiian
Department, signed Miles. Did you know of that being sent?
Col. BRATTON. Yes, I did know of this message and was shown a copy of it on or
about the date of dispatch.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Prior to Pearl Harbor did you ever see any reply from Gen.
Short to that message?
Col. BRATTON. No, prior to Pearl Harbor I have never seen any reply from Gen.
Short to any of these messages.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you know of the sending of this message to the Adjutant
General of November 28 warning your corps area and overseas department
commanders?
Col. BRATTON. Yes I knew of this message. I am under the impression that I was
shown a copy of it on or about the date of its dispatch.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. You had nothing to do with the sending of either that message
or the other message G-2 sent out of November 27?
Col. BRATTON. I did not. My recollection is that they were both drafted in the
office of the A. C. of S., G-2 or that of his executive.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I now show you a copy of a telegram from Melbourne, Australia
via Honolulu to the War Department and Commanding General, Hawaiian
Department, date of sending of the message the 6th, date received December 7,
7:50 p.m. Do you recall seeing such a message?
Col. BRATTON. I can make no positive statement in reply to that question. the
message, however, looks vaguely familiar.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you have any of the information contained this particular
message prior to one o'clock the afternoon of 7 December 1941?
Col. BRATTON. No.
Page 23
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I show you an MID form, subject: Information received from
the Orient, dated 3 November 1941, which is information purporting to come
from a Mr. Hirota, a presiding officer at a directors meeting of the Black
Dragon Society. I ask if you remember receiving this information approximately
at that time or shortly before.
[CO] Col. BRATTON. I do not recall ever having seen this document, nor can I
recall being advised as to its subject matter.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Information such as that, in the ordinary course of routine
back in the summer and fall of 1941, would be routed through you as an
ordinary matter, would it Col. Bratton?
Col. BRATTON. Yes, if this is a report from the Counter Intelligence Branch,
which I believe it to be, I received information of this nature from the Chief
of that Branch as a matter of routine.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I call your attention to a report of the headquarters, Third
Corps Area, dated 18 December 1941, subject: Report of Rumors Concerning
Japanese Attack on Hawaii. This report is signed by Philip L. Thurber,
Colonel, GSC. First I ask if you have any recollection of this particular
report.
Col. BRATTON. I have never seen this document before.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. The document last referred to of Headquarters, Third Corps
Area, of December 18, 1941, on Rumors Concerning Japanese Attack on Hawaii,
states in substance that Senator Gillette at Washington warned officials what
was going to happen, stating to officials that Japan would declare war on the
United States December l9 and would attack Hawaii. This information was
alleged to have been conveyed about 3 weeks prior to December 18. Did you ever
receive such information from Senator Gillette or from any other source?
Col. BRATTON. I did not.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I show you copy of a secret radiogram dated 7 July 1941 sent
to Commanding Generals of the Caribbean Defense Command, Philippine
Department, Hawaiian Department, Fourth Army, which in substance was an
estimate of the Jap probable course in the near future, and ask if you are
familiar with that radiogram.
Col. BRATTON. I do not recall having seen this message prior to or on the date
of its dispatch. However from its context I assume that it was based upon an
estimate prepared either in my office or at my direction by one of my
assistants as it expresses the views we entertained at that time.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I show you a copy of a radio message dated Oct. 27, 1941 from
Manila, P. I. to MILID, signed Brink, relative to movement of Japanese
shipping in Western Pacific and ask if you saw that message at or about that
time.
Col. BRATTON. I can make no positive statement in reply to that question, [21]
but the message looks familiar to me. I have seen this or one like it
containing similar information.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I show you a copy of a radiogram dated October 29, 1941 from
Manila to MILID, signed Evans, relative to the movement of Jap aircraft
carriers and other seacraft. I ask if you had knowledge of that message at or
about that time.
Col. BRATTON. This message also looks familiar. I would like to say at this
time that during this period messages of this type came over my desk in
considerable volume as all of our military attaches, ob-
Page 24
servers and agents were under instructions to assist us in following the
movements of Japanese naval craft and land forces.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I show you a copy of a paraphrase of secret message dated
November 29, 1941, No. 986, from Ft. Shafter to TAG, signed Short, which
answers secret radiogram No. 4820 of November 28, 1941, and gives other data
relative to the sabotage situation in Hawaii. I ask if you had ever seen that
message prior to December 7, 1941.
Col. BRATTON. No. I have not seen this message before. As the subject matter
deals largely with counter espionage and counter sabotage measures the message
would not, in the ordinary course of events have come over my desk but rather
over the desk of the Chief of the Counter Intelligence Branch.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I show you now copies of 5 radiograms sent from Tokyo to
MILID, those of July 12, July 14, July 23, 11:32 p. m. and July 27 being
signed Creswell, and the one of July 23, 3:21 p. m. being signed Orear. I ask
if you have recollection of seeing those cablegrams at about that time.
Col. BRATTON. Yes, all of these messages passed over my desk on or about the
date of their arrival in MID.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Earlier I asked you about a brief periodic estimate of the
situation December 1, 1941 to March 31, 1942, dated 29 November 1941, for the
Chief of Staff. I now call your attention to a memorandum for the Chief of
Staff entitled: Supplementary Brief Period Estimate of the Situation December
1, 1941-March 31, 1942, dated December 5, 1941. What occasioned issuing a
supplementary report as soon after the November 29th report, if you recall.
Col. BRATTON. I do not recall what the occasion was which demanded [22] the
issuance of this supplementary estimate, but I believe that, as is stated in
paragraph 1, the supplemental estimate is arranged in a form more suitable for
the Operations Division for use in planning.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did this supplemental report of December 5 correctly
represent your evaluation of the Japanese situation at that time?
Col. BRATTON. It did.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I show you now copies of memorandums for the Chief of Staff
of November 25, 26 and 27 dealing with the Far Eastern situation, Japanese
Naval Task Force and Recent Developments in the Far East, respectively. Those
reports correctly represent your evaluation of the various situations as
outlined therein, did they?
Col. BRATTON. They did. I wrote them.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I also call your attention to an undated memorandum of
November 1941 for the Assistant Chief of staff, WPD, on the subject of G-2
Estimate of the Far Eastern Situation (for situation and communication maps)
with tabs b, c, and d. Did this at that time correctly represent your
evaluation of the facts?
Col. BRATTON. It did. I wrote it.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you actually have any knowledge yourself as of early
December 1941 of exactly what of our naval forces were Pearl Harbor?
Col. BRATTON. Only in a general way.
Page 25
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you know at that time that the Navy, or a substantial
part of it was tying up for weekends at Pearl Harbor?
Col. BRATTON. I did not and had I been in possession of that knowledge I would
have urged, through the A. C. of S., G-2, that immediate action be taken to
prevent such an assemblage in the Harbor.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. At about this time, the first week of December 1941, had you
heard from any source that the Fleet was ordered to stay in Pearl Harbor?
Col. BRATTON No. I was under the impression, gained from conversations [23]
with my opposite number in ONI that the fleet in Hawaiian waters had been
alerted and all components were their battle stations.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I wish to say in asking this question that I don't have any
knowledge that it had been ordered to stay in harbor; I had heard rumors of
that, and that is the reason I asked the question.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. At that time, the first week of December 1941, were you under
the impression that extensive air reconnaissance was being maintained from
Hawaii?
Col. BRATTON. I was under that impression.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. These estimates of the situation or summaries of the
situation that I have referred to, do you know what their actual dissemination
was?
Col. BRATTON. I believe that in each case you will find at the bottom lower
left hand corner of the last page a distribution list which indicates to whom
the carbon copies were routed.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Do you have any recollection on the morning of December 7 at
what time it was that you received the intercept message which in effect
instructed the Japanese Ambassador to deliver Tokyo's reply to the Secretary
of State if possible at one o'clock the afternoon?
Col. BRATTON. I received a copy of this intercept from the Navy about 9 a. m.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Could you say you received it at about the same time as you
received the reply itself?
Col. BRATTON. No. The reply itself was received the day before. It was a very
long one and took considerable time to decipher and typewrite. It came to me
as fast as the various sections could be typed.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Col. Bratton, if on or about December 5, or at any time prior
to an attack on Pearl Harbor you had been informed that the Japanese had
broadcast a code message which implemented message No. 25432, which was the
Winds Code message, and had been advised that such message, decoded, in
substance meant U. S.-Japanese relations are in danger of being ruptured and
their consulates were to burn their codes, what would have been your
evaluation and action?
[24] Col. BRATTON. My evaluation would have been that Japan would immediately
sever diplomatic relations with the United States and that hostilities against
our country would ensue forthwith. Had I received such a report I would have
taken immediate and vigorous action, through the A. C. of S., G-2, to see that
the proper officials were alerted and warned to be on guard against any and
all eventualities.
Page 26
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Will you once more describe in detail how this Top Secret
material was handled between 1 October 1941 and the time of the attack on
Pearl Harbor.
Col. BRATTON. It was delivered daily by the Signal Intelligence Service by
hand of an officer to my office. I read all of the material, screening out
that which had intelligence value. The other material I then burned. Indeed
much that was daily brought in to me did not have intelligence value but was
merely routine and administrative in nature. The screened material was then
arranged by me in separate piles, one for the Chief of Staff, one for the
Secretary of War, on for the A. C. of S., G-2, one for the Secretary of State,
and one for the Chief of War Plans Division. I then bound each pile in a
cardboard folder, inserted the folder in the proper leather dispatch case,
locked each dispatch case and delivered it to the proper office, collecting at
that time the bags containing the previous day's output. These bags were
brought back by me to my office, opened and the material therein checked prior
to destruction by burning.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. It is also your recollection that it was shortly before Pearl
Harbor that copies of this Top Secret material were to go also to Gen. McNair,
Commanding General of the Army Ground Forces, and it was so delivered to him
by officer messenger daily for a short time prior to Pearl Harbor and a short
time after Pearl Harbor.
Col. BRATTON. That is correct.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I show you a memorandum dated 6 December signed by James F.
Perry and ask if you ever had that called to your attention at that time.
Col. BRATTON. No I have never seen this paper before.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Was any of the information contained in that paper ever
relayed to you as you recollect at that time?
[25] COL. BRATTON. Not that I recall.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Were you ever notified by anybody from the Navy that the Navy
had intercepted a message which was an implementation of the Winds Code prior
to Pearl Harbor?
Col. BRATTON. No, and by Winds Code I mean that phrase which would indicate a
rupture of diplomatic relations between Japan and the United States. My
recollection is that Lt. Kramer and Commander McCullom had received what
appeared to be garbles of variations of this Winds Codes message on one or two
occasions, but to the best of my knowledge and belief no clear cut Winds Code
message was received prior to Pearl Harbor indicating that relations between
Japan and the United States or Japan and Great Britain or Japan and Russia had
been or were about to be severed.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did Commander McCullom ever tell you of drafting a warning
message of several hundred words long warning the commanders in the Pacific
area that war was imminent and that such message was not sent out because his
superiors deemed it unnecessary?
Col. BRATTON. No, this is the first I have heard of this matter.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Colonel, to make sure to tie in all loose ends, let me ask
you this. All of the Top Secret material that you have here identified the
carrying dates of translation between October 1 and instant of Pearl Harbor
and which are in this case Exhibit 1, were delivered by you or an officer
working for you to the Chief of staff, Secretary of War, Chief of War Plans
Division, A. C. of S., G-2 and
Page 27
the Department of State, were they not? And delivered at times relatively
close to the date of the translation thereof as shown on the bottom of each
Top Secret document?
Col. BRATTON. That is correct.
[26] PART III
Place: Room 2C637
Pentagon Building, Washington, D. C.
Date: 20 September 1944
Time: 1500-1600
Present: Colonel Rufus S. Bratton
Colonel Carter W. Clarke
Lt. Col. E. W. Gibson
Col. BRATTON. I have a statement to make and I request that it be made a part
of the record of this investigation. The allegation has been made, in the
press and elsewhere in connection with the disaster at Pearl Harbor, that if
G-2 had been "on the job" we would not have been caught so unprepared for our
war with Japan. In point of fact, G-2 in general and the Far Eastern Section
in particular were very much "on the job," as evidenced by the written record
of Estimates, Staff Studies, Memoranda, etc., with which G-2 served the Chief
of Staff, the A. C. of S., G-2, WPD, ONI, the State Department and other
interested planning and policy making agencies of the Government, to warn them
of the increasing menace of Japanese war potential and intentions. G-2 can
stand on this record and needs no defense from me. I feel, however, that a
part of this record, as presented in the documents I now lay before you,
should be taken cognizance of by this investigating committee and made a part
of its proceedings if for no other reason than that the documents include some
Top Secret papers heretofore known as Magic and many references to others.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Do I understand, Col. Bratton, that many of the documents
contained in the summaries now being introduced into this investigation, most
of which were in the nature of Estimates of the Situation, contain conclusions
based upon your knowledge of the material contained in the so-called Magic
material?
Col. BRATTON. That is correct. The principal document I show you I secured
from the G-2 files. It is labeled, "Summary of Far Eastern Documents." It came
into being as a result of a letter from the President to the Chief of Staff,
dated July 14, 1943, in which the former requested copies of the dispatches of
our military attaches which estimate or express any opinion regarding the
probability or improbability of an outbreak of war, or which refer in any way
to the estimates of potential military strength of any of the countries
involved. The countries which [27] concerned the President were Germany,
Japan, Italy, Bulgaria, Austria, Occupied France, Belgium, England and Russia.
He indicated his interest in dispatches from January 1, 1937 until such time
as our military attaches left the first seven named countries; his interest in
similar dispatches from England dated from January 1, 1937 to the outbreak of
the war in September 1939; and his interest in dispatches bearing on this
subject from Russia from January 1, 1937 until the present time (that is, the
time of his letter of July 4. 1943). This letter of the President was
transmitted to me by the
Page 28
then A. C. of S., G-2, General Strong, who instructed me to start work on a
compilation of the desired documents. I was at that time the Chief of the
Intelligence Branch, MIS, G-2. I detailed Col. Maguire to exercise general
supervision over the assembly of European documents and Col. Pettigrew over
the Far Eastern documents. As stated in the explanatory note which you will
find on page 1 of the Summary of Far Eastern Documents, the yearly summaries
which follow on successive pages are based on information contained in
intelligence documents consisting of reports, memoranda, estimates, etc. The
summary itself was written in a chronologically arranged narrative form
supported by photostats of the original documents in the files of G-2. It was
arranged in this way to facilitate the use of the document by historical
researchers. The European summaries were similarly compiled and supported by
photostats of the original documents. All summaries were transmitted to the
Chief of Staff by a covering memorandum signed by the A. C. of S., G-2,
General Strong, 20 August 1943. With the covering memorandum was transmitted a
memorandum for the President, subject: Axis War Potential, for the Signature
of the Chief of Staff, which read as follows:
"There are forwarded herewith, in accordance with the request of the President
dated July 14,1943, copies of numerous Military Attach‚ dispatches, memoranda,
estimates and handbooks dealing with the preparations for war by German Italy
and Japan, and their aggressive intentions on the continents of Europe and
Asia from January 1, 1937. Similar documents bearing on Bulgaria, Austria,
Occupied France, Belgium, England, and Russia are also included.
"These photostatic, carbon, or "true" copies [28] of G-2 dispatches,
memoranda, etc., have been arranged in chronological order for each of the
above named countries. To assist the White House Secretariat in studying this
material, a brief summary of the contents of each file has been prepared by G-
2 and these summaries have also been arranged in chronological order in two
volumes, Far Eastern and European, enclosed herewith as Tabs A and B
respectively.
"It has not been thought advisable to submit all documents on the subject of
Axis war preparations to the White House. There are thousands of miscellaneous
dispatches and other documents which touch incidentally on German, Italian and
Japanese war preparations, but which are only slightly germane to a historical
analysis of the information possessed by G-2 on Axis preparations and
aggressive intentions.
"Furthermore, as the President is aware, during the summer and fall of 1941,
G-2 secured from highly secret sources considerable information indicating
Japan's determination to resort to armed force in the event that the
negotiation between Secretary Hull and Ambassador Nomura, then being
conducted, did not result in an agreement satisfactory to Japan. It is
presumed that the President does not desire to have documents from this source
included in this compilation because of the danger to security involved.
"Great care has been taken by G-2 to include in this compilation copies of
mis-estimates by Military Attaches or other persons as regards strength and
intentions. A few such mis-estimates actually occurred, but on the whole,
false conclusions were rare and pertained not so much to the strength and
ultimate aggressive intentions of the Axis as they did to the timing of the
aggression.
"In the case of the document collection pertaining to Germany, a few very
important dispatches have been included dealing with the period 1935-1936, in
as much as these were the years of the largest and most rapid military
expansion.
"It is thought probable that, after the White House Secretariat commences to
study these documents, it will feel the need for examining still further [29]
dispatches on matters correlated to the Axis rearmament program. They can be
promptly furnished by G-2 in case they are desired."
COL. BRATTON. On August 26, 1943, the A. C. of S., G-2 received memorandum
from the Secretary, General Staff, which read as follows:
"The attached tab does not comply with the directive in that it contains much
material other than MA reports. The Chief of Staff desires that it be revised
to contain *only* MA reports."
Page 29
This memorandum and Tab A, the Summary of Far Eastern Documents, were given to
me by Gen. Strong at approximately 2:00 p. m. August 1943, with instructions
to revise Tab A as directed. Tab B, the Summary of European Documents,
although prepared in the same manner as Tab A, that is, containing estimates
by G-2, Staff Studies, memoranda and other entries of evaluated intelligence,
was not returned to Gen. Strong. I inferred that it would be forwarded to the
President as compiled and that Tab A was to contain only raw, unevaluated
military attache reports. I instructed the Chief, Far Eastern Unit, to revise
Tab A as quickly as possible as directed in Col. Sexton's memorandum. At about
2:45 p. m. 26 August 1943, Gen. Strong directed me to include military
observer reports with military attache reports in Tab A. The revised Tab A,
revised as directed in memorandum from the Secretary, General Staff, dated 26
August 1943, was forwarded to the Chief of staff on 1 September 1943. The
Summary as then written and its supporting file of 15 volumes were based only
upon reports received from military attaches and military observers. The
Summary of Far Eastern Documents which went forward to the resident did not
contain any references to Magic or any summaries, estimates or staff Studies
based thereon wholly or in part. It is to the first edition or unrevised
Summary of Far Eastern Documents at I wish to call the attention of this
committee.
It will be noted that many of the documents have a "distribution list" written
or printed on the document itself indicating the offices or officers to whom
copies were given. Where no "distribution list" appears it may be assumed that
the War Plans Division was given a copy, as was the Office of Naval
Intelligence, as that was our standard operating procedure. The State
Department was given copies when the subject matter would be of interest to
that department. Occasionally, when considered of sufficient importance,
copies went to the President.
[30] TOP SECRET
PART IV
Place: Room 2C637
Pentagon Building, Washington, D. C.
Date: 23 September 1944.
Time: 0950-1005.
Present: Colonel Rufus S. Bratton.
Colonel Carter W. Clarke.
Lt. Col. E. W. Gibson.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Colonel, while you were testifying about this meeting in the
office of General Marshall on Sunday morning, 7 December 141, you were using a
memorandum to refresh your recollection. When was that memorandum prepared and
by whom?
Col. BRATTON. On or about the 8th of December 1941, by General Miles with my
help.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Is the above paper a true copy of that memorandum?
Col. BRATTON. Yes.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I want to get a few more details about this Sunday morning
meeting. After your telephone conversation with General
Page 30
Marshall in which he told you to meet him at his (General Marshall's) office
and that he was on his way there, what did you do?
Col. BRATTON. I called General Miles on the telephone and reported to him the
gist of my conversation with General Marshall and recommended to General Miles
that he come to the office too as General Marshall would no doubt want to see
him also. Either General Miles or I, I have forgotten which, then called
General Gerow and asked him to come to the office also as we felt General
Marshall would wish to see him also. I then proceeded to General Marshall's
office and waited for him either in the anteroom, that is, the office of the
Secretary of the General Staff, or in the hallway where I could see the Chief
of Staff immediately upon his arrival on that floor. My recollection is that
General Marshall and General Miles arrived at about the same time and that I
followed the two of them into the latter's office, carrying a copy of the
message I wished him to see.
[31] Lt. Col. GIBSON. Was that message the message of instructions to the
Japanese Ambassadors to deliver the Japanese reply to the Department of State
at one p. m. Washington time?
Col. BRATTON. Yes.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I want to ask another question to clear up another point.
When, to the best of your recollection, was the Japanese reply, Top. Secret
Army No. 25843, delivered to General Marshall's office?
Col. BRATTON. Either on the night of 6 December or early in the morning of the
7th, prior to his arrival at his office.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. When you walked into General Marshall's office, following
General Marshall and General Miles, on the morning of 7 December, what did you
do?
Col. BRATTON. I handed him the message referring to the time delivery to the
Secretary of State of the Japanese long reply.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did he read it that time or did he read the long Japanese
reply first, as far as you recollect?
Col. BRATTON. As far as I recollect, he read the message that handed to him
first, then read the long reply.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Colonel, is it possible that the second telephone
conversation on that Sunday morning between General Marshall and Admiral Stark
was as a result of Admiral Stark's calling General Marshall, rather than
General Marshall calling Admiral Stark?
Col. Bratton. Yes, it is quite possible.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you make two or three trips to the message center with
the message penciled by General Marshall on that forenoon of 7 December?
Col. BRATTON. I made only two trips to the message center, carrying General
Marshall's penciled memorandum with me for delivery to the officer in charge
of the message center on the first trip.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did Colonel Bundy go with you on either trip to the message
center on that Sunday morning?
Col. BRATTON. He did not.
[32] Lt. Col. GIBSON. This 11:25 a. m. when you first saw General Marshall on
that Sunday morning, that time is the time as you an General Miles recalled it
when you drew up this Memorandum for the Record, is it not?
Col. BRATTON. Yes.
Page 31
TESTIMONY OF COL. EDWARD F. FRENCH
[1] Place: Room 2C637
Pentagon Building, Washington, D. C.
Date: 28 September 1944
Time: 1015-1045.
Present: Colonel Carter W. Clarke.
Colonel Edward F. French.
Lt. Col. E. W. Gibson.
Colonel Edward F. French, having been sworn and warned of his rights by
Colonel Carter W. Clarke, gave the following sworn testimony:
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Will you state your name, rank and serial number and present
position, please.
Col. FRENCH. Colonel Edward F. French, O8935, officer in charge of Traffic
Operation Branch, Army Communications Service, Office Chief Signal Officer,
Washington, D. C.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Were you on duty in the War Department in Washington in that
position the first week of December 1941?
Col. FRENCH. I was.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. As such, did you have immediate supervision over the War
Department message center?
Col. FRENCH. I did.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I show you now telegram dated 5 December 1941 signed Miles,
addressed to Assistant Chief of Staff, Headquarters G-2, Hawaiian Department,
Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, and ask if this telegram passed through your
message center for delivery to the addressee on that particular day.
Col. FRENCH. This message was received in the code section of the War
Department message center at 11:47 a. m. on the 5th of December 1941, as
indicated by the stamp on the reverse side. This message was given a code
serial number of 519 and its transmission evidenced by the "Sent No. 519 12-
5," as typed on the face of the message.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Was that typed by the message center, that particular typing?
[2] Col. FRENCH. No. This clear text message never left the code room but that
number and date was typed on there after the return of the coded copy of the
coded text itself from the Signal center.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Who actually did the typing of the words "Sent No. 519 12-5"?
Col. FRENCH. That was typed on there by a clerk in the code room after the
return of the message from the Signal Center.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. After the message had actually been sent?
Col. FRENCH. After the message had actually been received by the signal Center
for transmission. Then this copy, as provided for under the routine, was
returned to G-2. We do not keep any copies of the original texts in our
office; they were returned to the writer within 24 hours.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Will you explain the routine that then existed between Hawaii
and the War Department which was set up to insure that all messages sent were
received?
Page 32
Col. FRENCH. To assure that all messages were received, we had separate set of
serial numbers that was utilized to identify the classified message. These
numbers were assigned in sequence and were frequently checked to assure that
the message assigned that number reached its destination. In some instances
messages have been delayed in transmission or in office routine so that a
message would be received in a code room out of sequence. In such instances a
service message would be instituted to check for the message not in sequence
that was evidently delayed or possibly lost.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. In-other words, Colonel, if message No. 519, being the
telegram in question in this investigation, had not been received by Hawaii,
what would have happened?
0 Col. FRENCH. In checking their numbers off in Hawaii, when Hawaii would
receive No. 520 and No. 419 [sic] did not appear in a reasonable time, they
would query the War Department message center relative to No. 519, and the War
Department message center would check the files, verify its transmission and
repeat the message.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Do you believe this message No. 519 on 5 December 1941 went
by cable or by radio?
[3] Col. FRENCH I believe that that message went via radio as it was a
"routine" message and our normal transmitting would be via radio. In the event
that our radio was out of service, due to atmospheric conditions, the message
would have been transmitted via cable.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Your records of messages sent in December 1941 were kept for
how long?
Col. FRENCH. AS I recall it, at the time it was 6 months. However the
regulations have since been changed and the messages are now retained for a
period of 3 months. The War Department code room is not an office of records,
under the provisions of Army regulations. All records pertaining to classified
messages rest with the office of origin.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Then as far as you know the Signal Corps have no existing
records in Washington that would show any more about the fate of message No.
519 of 5 December 1941?
Col. FRENCH. The only actual record of this message is as indicated on the
message itself. The files of the coded text have all been destroyed by
burning, as provided for in Army regulations.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I want to go to the morning of 7 December 1941. Were you on
duty in the message center on that morning?
Col. FRENCH. I placed myself on duty on Sunday morning, 7 December.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Were you there when Colonel Rufus Bratton brought a penciled
message to the message center?
Col. FRENCH. I was in my office across the hall from the code room when
Colonel Bratton came to the code room with a message.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Will you tell us now what took place at that time
Col. FRENCH. I heard some commotion over in the code room and I immediately
left my desk and on arrival there I found Col. Bratton with a message that he
was anxious to have processed for immediate transmission. I asked Colonel
Bratton if I could be of any assistance to him and he said he was anxious to
get this message processed [4] immediately. The message, as I recall, was
written in pencil on a slip of paper. It was rather difficult to read so I
told Colonel
Page 33
Bratton it would be necessary to type the message and have him verify. The
message was typed and Colonel Bratton verified and then authenticated the
message. We immediately processed this message into a code system and after
the work was under way I went into the Signal Center to cheek and determine
the method of transmission. I found that our channel at Honolulu was out, due
to atmospheric conditions, from about 10:30 that morning. I had the operator
check the channel to Honolulu and at that time Honolulu could not be heard. It
was determined that Honolulu was working San Francisco but the atmospheric
condition was so bad that to transmit the message to San Francisco in a relay
to Honolulu would mean that it would have to be sent at slow speed and then
copied and retransmitted at San Francisco to Honolulu. I made up my mind that
the quickest method of dispatch would be via commercial service and avoid the
risk of any garbling or error in relaying the message via Army facilities
through San Francisco.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. What did you know about the means of communication between
RCA and Honolulu and Ft. Shafter?
Col. FRENCH. Our normal method of transmitting a message, when atmospheric
conditions prevent handling via radio, is to utilize commercial facilities
that are available in the Signal Center. As this message could be handled
directly to San Francisco via the Western Union and on a tube relay of this
message to the RCA office in San Francisco, with that excellent dispatch, this
method had been chosen. I had learned on Saturday, the day previous, that the
RCA was installing a teletype circuit to the Department headquarters at Ft.
Shafter, so I assumed that this would be the most expeditious means of getting
that message with the least practicable delay to the Department headquarters.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. You have no personal knowledge, I assume, of actually what
happened to the message when it got to Hawaii?
Col. FRENCH. No.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did Colonel Bratton return to the message center a second
time after he had been there the first time as you have described?
[5] Col. FRENCH. Yes, I believe Colonel Bratton was in my office several times
during that Sunday morning.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Was he there a second time with reference to is particular
message?
Col. FRENCH. As I recall, on my return to the code room from the Signal
Center, I met Colonel Bratton at the code room door and he asked me how long
it would take to get that message transmitted Hawaii. I informed him that I
thought it would be there within half hour to 45 minutes.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did Colonel Bundy ever at any time come that morning to your
office with Colonel Bratton?
Col. FRENCH. I don't recall that Colonel Bundy came to my office with Colonel
Bratton but I very definitely recall Colonel Bundy coming to my office that
morning and spending some time with me there.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Was that before or after this episode?
Col. FRENCH. After this episode. In fact, Colonel Bundy and I reviewed the
action taken on certain messages.
Page 34
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Which messages were they that you reviewed the action taken
on?
Col. FRENCH. Whatever messages were at that time being transmitted through the
office.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM F. FRIEDMAN
[1] PART I
Place: Room 20637 [sic]
Pentagon Building, Washington, D. C.
Date: 16 September 1944.
Time: 1045-1115.
Present: Colonel Carter W. Clarke.
Lt. Col. E. W. Gibson.
Mr. William F. Friedman.
Mr. William F. Friedman, having been sworn and warned of his rights by Colonel
Carter W. Clarke, gave the following sworn testimony:
Col. CLARKE. Will you state your name and official position in the U. S.
Government.
Mr. FRIEDMAN. William F. Friedman, Director of Communications Research, Signal
Security Agency, Office Chief Signal Officer.
Col. CLARKE. What were your duties in this position during the six months
period immediately prior to Pearl Harbor?
Mr. FRIEDMAN. I was principal cryptanalyst in the Signal Intelligence Service.
I had just been retired from active duty as lieutenant colonel, Signal
Reserve, in about April, I think it was the early part of April 1941, and was
given an honorable discharge for permanent disability. I had been in Walter
Reed hospital for some three or four months and was recovering from a nervous
breakdown.
Col. CLARKE. In your position you were familiar with and had access to and had
read all of the production of the Signal Intelligence Service?
Mr. FRIEDMAN. I had access to it. I didn't read it all because at than time,
in my condition I was not able to carry on a full day's duty an had been
assigned to other work by Col. Minkler who was then the Chief of SIS.
Col. CLARKE. Were you familiar with a message which was received on or about
November 28 which later became known as the Winds message?
Mr. FRIEDMAN. Yes.
Col. CLARKE. I gave you this document and ask you to identify it.
Mr. FRIEDMAN. I believe that I was familiar with it at the time.
[2] Col. CLARKE. Will you state what, to the best of your recollection, is the
history of this message, with any implementing message which may have been
received in connection with it.
Mr. FRIEDMAN. My recollection is so hazy at the moment and I really was not in
on the details of cryptanalytic operations at the time, so I would hesitate to
make any statement about that.
COL. CLARKE. Could you refresh your memory by getting a log of SIS?
Mr. FRIEDMAN. I think that would be possible.
Col. CLARKE. Do you know whether any implementing message on that was ever
received?
Page 35
Mr. FRIEDMAN. Not to my direct knowledge at the time. I only learned of it
comparatively recently in talking with Col. Sadtler and Capt. Safford of the
Navy. If I did know it at the time I have forgotten it.
Col. CLARKE. Would you care to make any statement with reference to the
arrangement which was then in existence where the Navy processed messages one
day and the Army the next. Would that have contributed to the disaster where
you had no continuity of study?
Air. FRIEDMAN. I don't believe that arrangement had any particular affect on
the situation. It was an arrangement that was worked out between Adm. Noyes
and Gen. Mauborgne, to have as fair a distribution of work and credit in the
results achieved as possible.
Col. CLARKE. The point I am making there though is, would the translators who
worked on the same thing day in and out not have had this continuity of
thought in mind if the same people had been working on it?
Mr. Friedman. Of course the translators in both the Army and the Navy
cryptanalytic sections were constantly engaged on the same sort of material.
There was a full exchange of material and results. A message might be done one
day by the Navy people and another message the next day by the Army people, so
that they kept their hands in it together and they were keeping abreast of
each other in the work. That of course was one of the aims of that
arrangement. I, as a technician, think that it was a poor arrangement from a
cryptanolytic standpoint but from a practical standpoint, in trying to share
the work on all equal basis and share credit perhaps, that is as good an
arrangement as could be worked out, with two separate but cooperating
organizations.
Ll. Col. GIBSON. Just one question. You received from the FCC a document with
three attachments, a letter dated August 18, 1944 having to do with the so-
called Winds Message and possible implementation thereof. Is that correct? I
show you this telegram.
Mr. FRIEDMAN. The documents were not received directly by me from he FCC. I
was given a copy by Capt. Safford of the Navy.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. And this is the document that I now have in my possession?
Mr. FRIEDMAN. That is right.
PART II
Place: Room 2C637
Pentagon Building, Washington, D. C.
Date: 19 September 1944.
Time: 1030-1200.
Present: Colonel Carter W. Clarke.
Lt. Col. E. W. Gibson.
Mr. William F. Friedman
[4] Lt. Col. GIBSON. Do you now have access to the Signal Intelligence Service
records of the United States Army for the dates October through Pearl Harbor
1941?
Mr. FRIEDMAN. I do.
Lt Col. GIBSON. And have you searched those records to see what, if anything,
was done about having Army signal stations monitor for the Japanese Winds Code
message?
Page 36
Mr. FRIEDMAN. I have examined the files which are extant and find that certain
messages were sent and I can present copies of those which were found.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did the Army ask its stations to monitor for implementations
of the so-called Winds messages?
Mr. FRIEDMAN. Not specific Winds messages so far as I know, but a general
directive was sent to all its monitoring stations on December 2 directing that
monitoring stations were to copy all Japanese plain text in addition to code
text and that traffic be forwarded with the regular traffic.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Was any other message sent in this regard after that?
Mr. FRIEDMAN. On December 7 a message was sent to Signal office at Manila, Ft.
Shafter and Presidio of San Francisco directing that they were to send to the
War Department by priority enciphered radio Japanese clear language messages
all ending with the English word "stop," copied since November 27 and
thereafter.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Is there any record showing that the Army Signal Service
received prior to Pearl Harbor any message that implement either of these
Winds Codes?
Mr. FRIEDMAN. Not that I have been able to find so far.
[5] Lt. Col. GIBSON. Have you made a diligent search from all possible sources
available to you to see if the Army Signal Service through its monitoring
stations, ever received any executing message to these Winds messages?
Mr. FRIEDMAN. I have made a diligent search but I will not say that it is a
completely exhaustive search because of the lack of time. Thus far I have not
found a single bit of evidence to indicate that an Army station actually
intercepted a Winds execute message.
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. GEN. L. T. GEROW
[1] Place: Room 3E794
Pentagon Building, Washington, D. C
Date: 25 September 1944.
Time: 1425-1530.
Present: Major General L. T. Gerow.
Colonel Carter W. Clarke.
Lt. Col. E. W. Gibson.
Major General L. T. Gerow, having been sworn and warned of his rights by
Colonel Carter W. Clarke, gave the following sworn testimony:
Col. CLARKE. Will you state your name, rank, organization an station please.
Gen. GEROW. L. T. Gerow, Major General, U. S. Army, Commanding V Corps,
Luxembourg. .
Col. CLARKE. What were your duties, sir, from the period October 1, 1941
through December 7?
Gen. GEROW. Assistant Chief of Staff, War Plans Division.
Col. CLARKE. In this position, will you state whether or not you received from
G-2 any material which was then known to you as Magic.
Gen. GEROW. I did.
Col. CLARKE. Are you familiar with that material? Do you identify any of it as
material which you have previously seen?
Page 37
Gen. GEROW. I saw material of a similar nature three years ago. I cannot
definitely state at this time whether or not I saw these particular documents.
I imagine I did.
Col. CLARKE. Do you recall having discussed with Colonel Bratton or General
Miles a message which later became known as the "Winds" message? In that
message there was a statement that if certain words occurred in the weather
broadcast that would indicate the severance of diplomatic relations between
the United States and Japan or Great Britain and Japan or Russia and Japan.
The message is Top Secret Army No. 29432.
Gen. GEROW. I believe I saw the message and discussed it with [2] Colonel
Bratton. I cannot be sure, at this late date.
Col. CLARKE. Do you recall whether on the morning of approximately December 5
or at any other time that you discussed with General Miles or Colonel Bratton
any message which implemented that which would indicate the severance of
relations between the United States and Japan?
Gen. GEROW. I do not remember any such message.
Col. CLARKE. Do you recall, as Chief of War Plans Division, any warning
message being sent out on or about November 27, 28 or 29 to the overseas
commanders?
Gen. GEROW. Yes, I remember the message sent out on 27 November.
Col. CLARKE Do you have any recollection of any of this stuff that Sadtler
says here in his testimony?
Gen. GEROW. I have recollection of talking to Sadtler only once. I don't
recall ever being informed by Colonel Sadtler of the fact that Japan had
decided to declare war on Great Britain.
Col. CLARKE. Were you ever informed by Colonel Bratton or General Miles of
that?
Gen. GEROW. Not to the best of my recollection.
Col. CLARKE. When Colonel Bratton would bring this material to you, would you
just read it or did you discuss it with him?
Gen. GEROW. Ordinarily he would leave it for me to read. On some occasions he
would remark that he had something very hot or refer to a particular paragraph
which we would discuss.
Col. CLARKE. Do you recall ever discussing the contents of any of this, prior
to Pearl Harbor, with General Marshall?
Gen. GEROW. Yes, I do recall discussing Magic information with General
Marshall on numerous occasions.
Col. CLARKE. Do you remember whether or not any of the warning messages which
you sent out, as Chief of War Plans Division, were based on this material?
[3] Gen. Gerow. The warning messages were based on the general situation as we
knew it and a part of that information came from these messages.
Col. CLARKE. Do you recall ever having gotten a warning from the Secretary of
State to the effect that negotiations would very likely break down and that
war would ensue?
Gen. GEROW. Of course I didn't get any information as a rule direct from the
Secretary of State. On one occasion I recall there was a general discussion in
the Secretary of War's office relative to the phrasing of a warning message to
go to the overseas commanders. Prior to sending this message out the Secretary
of War conferred over the
Page 38
telephone with the Secretary of State. The result was that a message, dated
November 27th, was sent out containing such a statement.
Col. CLARKE. General, will you state what you recollect about the instance of
the morning of December 7, with particular reference any message which may
have been brought to your attention by Colonel Bratton or General Miles.
Gen. GEROW. I have here a memorandum for record on that subject which I
prepared on December 15, 1941. I would like to insert that memorandum in the
record as my answer to your question.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I show you Top Secret Army No. 25850. Is this the message you
refer to?
Gen. Gerow. I cannot definitely identify this message, but I think it is the
same one that was under discussion.
Lt. Gen. GIBSON. Do you recall who, if anyone, there wrote a message to be
sent to Honolulu?
Gen. GEROW. General Marshall personally wrote the message.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Referring to your memorandum dated 15 December 1941, do you
remember whether General Marshall sent Colonel Bratton back to the message
center a second time to check?
Gen. GEROW. I don't recall.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Do you recall whether there was any discussion or debate
regarding the interpretation on either of [4] these messages in General
Marshall's office prior to the writing of this message? Was it discussed
freely?
Gen. GEROW. The message was discussed freely. The main point involved was the
significance of the time_1:00 p. m.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. And who was there exactly besides you, Bratton and General
Marshall?
Gen. GEROW. General Miles and Colonel Bundy.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. The discussion, as you remember it, was about this one
o'clock proposition?
Gen. GEROW. That is right.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Do you remember whether or not General Marshall asked your
opinion, what it meant, or anything of this nature?
Gen. GEROW. He asked all of us for an opinion as to the meaning of the
message.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. This Magic, was that delivered in a dispatch case at that
time to your office everyday_a locked dispatch case?
Gen GEROW. As I recall, Bratton used to bring it down himself personally in a
locked dispatch case.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. During the day you would go over it and the next day he would
come and get that and leave you some more?
Gen. GEROW. I don't think we kept it. I think I went over it as soon as I
could and occasionally I would call Bundy, my war planning man, in and let him
see parts of it, and then it would be return immediately to Bratton.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Were you pretty close to G-2 at the time; did they give you
estimates of the situation occasionally?
Gen. GEROW. Yes.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. And you conferred with them about the enemy situation
generally?
Gen. GEROW. That is correct.
[5] Lt. Col. GIBSON. It was your duty, as head of the War Plans Division, to
direct the Commanding General of the Hawaiian Depart-
Page 39
ment as to dispositions, what state of alert to take, or anything of that
nature?
Gen. GEROW. Not necessarily that way. If something important could come up it
would be discussed with the Chief of Staff and might be discussed by the Joint
Board. Messages would result from those discussions.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Generally such instructions sent out would be sent through
your office?
Gen. GEROW. Yes, on matters involving WPD responsibilities. If it were purely
a G-2 matter, the instructions would go out through the G-2 office. War Plans
Division occupied a little different status at that time from what it occupies
now.
Lt. Col. GEROW. Did the Navy ever inform you exactly of what their naval
schedule was, that is, when their ships would be in harbor and when they would
he out to sea, or anything of this nature, particularly referring to the
Hawaiian Islands?
Gen. GEROW. No. I don't believe they did specifically inform me. I could have
gotten that information, however, from the Navy had I asked for it.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Were you aware that the Navy were coming in and tying up on
definite weekends in Hawaii?
Gen. GEROW. No. I was not.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I show you a message dated 27 November 1941 and ask if that
is the message that you have referred to in your testimony where the telephone
conversation was had with the Secretary of State prior to the sending of that
particular message?
Gen. GEROW. Yes, this is the message I referred to. I presume that it is a
true copy of the original message.
Col. CLARKE. Yes it is.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I also show you a copy of a secret radiogram dated July 7,
1941 which is in the nature of a warning to the Hawaiian commander and others
and ask if you recollect that.
[6] Gen. GEROW. Yes. It carries my signature.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I just wondered if you had any recollection of it now.
Gen. GEROW. Yes. I remember such a message.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. In other words, even on July 7, 1941, you were giving some
sort of warning to these various commanders?
Gen. GEROW. That is right.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. When you sent this warning of November 27, did you consider
that as a definite war warning, General?
Gen. GEROW. I considered it very definitely a message to put our forces on the
alert in these various overseas garrisons against a possible attack by Japan.
I was called to the Deputy Chief of Staff's office (General Bryden) and there
General Miles, Colonel Bundy, General Bryden and I discussed the advisability
of including in this message any reference to sabotage or subversive
activities. I objected to the inclusion of any reference to sabotage in this
message that was being prepared by War Plans Division. As I recall, the
decision was finally made by General Bryden that G-2 would sent a message to
the G-2 of the Hawaiian Department telling them to be on the alert against
sabotage. The original copy of the message that we had at that meeting shows
that the
Page 40
reference to subversive activities and sabotage was stricken out and initialed
by me, with the approval of General Bryden.
Col. CLARKE. In view, sir, of what you have just stated, in your opinion this
message of November 27 constituted a definite war warning to the overseas
commanders and you did not want to confuse sabotage or subversion with an
alert?
Gen. GEROW. Yes, I did conceive it to be that, very definitely.
Lt. Col. GIBSON: General, this message of November 27, 1941 to the Commanding
General, Hawaiian Department and Commanding General, Caribbean Defense
Command, was considered by you to be a definite warning to be on the alert
against a possible enemy offensive against those garrisons.
[7] Gen. GEROW. That is correct.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. I show you now, General, a paraphrase of a radiogram from
General Short received in the War Department 29 November 1941 and ask if you
recollect that message.
Gen. GEROW. I don't recall having seen that message. If I did see it my
initials probably appear on it in the permanent records.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Do you have any recollection of having an answer from General
Short to your warning radiogram of 27 November 19412
Gen. GEROW. The War Department records show that such a message was received
in the War Department.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. You mean an answer from General Short?
Gen. GEROW. Correct.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Do you recollect what his answer was?
Gen. GEROW. I have refreshed my memory from War Department records. There was
a reply received from General Short which in substance stated that he had
taken all the necessary precautions against sabotage and that he had liaison
with the Navy.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you know of the message of November 24, 1941 sent by the
Chief of Naval Operations to Admiral Kimmel, which message stated that in the
opinion of the Navy Department a surprise aggressive movement in any direction
by the Japanese including an attack on the Philippines or Guam, was a
possibility; that the doubt as to favorable outcome of pending negotiations,
the statements of the Japanese government, and the movements of its army and
naval forces, supported this opinion, and that the message stated that the
Chief of Staff of the Army requested the local senior Army officers be advised
that he concurred in the dispatch? Did you know of the sending of that
dispatch on or about 24 November 1941?
Gen. GEROW. I knew that the Navy sent such a message and believe that I read
it. As to the exact date and wording, I cannot recall at the moment.
[8] Lt. Col. GIBSON. But it was at about that time?
Gen. GEROW. Yes.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you also know that on the 27th of November, the date on
which this warning message was sent through your office to the Commanding
General of Hawaii, that the Chief of Naval Operations was sending a message to
the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific fleet which stated in substance that the
dispatch was to be considered a war warning; that the negotiations with Japan
in an effort to stabilize conditions in the Pacific had ended; that Japan was
expected to make an aggressive move within the next few days; that an
amphibious expedition against either the Philippines, Thai, or Kra Pen-
Page 41
insula, or possibly Borneo, was indicated by the number and equipment of
Japanese troops and the organization of their naval task forces. The message
further stated that Guam, Samoa and Continental Districts had been directed to
take appropriate measures against sabotage, that a similar warning was being
sent by the War Department. At about that time did you know such a message w
as being sent by the Navy Department?
Gen. GEROW. To the best of my recollection, at that meeting in the Secretary's
office on the morning of November 27, it was agreed at that time that the Navy
would send a similar warning message to the one that the War Department was
sending out.
Lt. Col. GIBSON. Did you know at the time that on December 3, 1941 the Navy
Department sent a message to the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific fleet
stating it was believed certain Japanese consulates were destroying their
codes and burning secret documents; and that on December 4 and again on
December 6 they sent instructions to the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific
fleet with regard to destroying certain confidential documents and means of
confidential communication under conditions of emergency. Did you know of such
messages being sent?
Gen. GEROW. I have no recollection of having seen such a message although I
may have seen it before dispatch. The War Plans Divisions of both the Army and
Navy were in constant contact and kept each other advised of action taken.
[9] Lt. Col. GIBSON. At that time, was it your opinion that the commanding
General of the Hawaiian Department and the other commanding Generals of the
Departments in the Pacific or of the Caribbean had had sufficient warning
against any aggressive action by the enemy, particularly the Japanese?
Gen. GEROW. I felt that they had been sufficiently warned as to the
possibility of aggressive action on the part of Japan.
DECEMBER 15, 1941
On Sunday, December 7, 1941, about 11:30 A. M., E. S. T., General Marshall
called me to his office. General Miles and Colonel Bratton were present.
General Marshall referred to the fact that the Japanese Ambassador had been
directed to deliver a note to the State Department at 1 P. M., December 7,
1941. He felt that the Japanese Government instructions to deliver the note at
an exact hour and time might have great significance. The pencilled draft of
an alert message to be sent at once to CG, U. S. Army Forces in Far East; CG
Caribbean Defense Command; CG Hawaiian Department; and CG Fourth Army were
read aloud by General Marshall and concurred in by all present. Colonel
Bratton was directed to take the pencilled draft of the message to the Message
Center and have it sent immediately by the most expeditious means. Colonel
Bratton returned in a few minutes and informed General Marshall that the
message had been turned over to the Message Center and would reach
destinations in about thirty minutes. The pencilled draft was typed later
during the day and formally made of record.
/S/ L. T. Gerow
L. T. GEROW
Brigadier General,
Acting Assistant Chief of Staff.
Page 42
TESTIMONY OF BRIG. GEN. HAYES A. KRONER
[1] Place: Room 2C637
Pentagon Building, Washington, D. C.
Date: 13 September 1944.
Time: 1430-1510.
Present: Brigadier General Hayes A. Kroner.
Colonel Carter W. Clarke.
Lt. Col. E. W. Gibson.
Brigadier General Hayes A. Kroner, having been sworn and warned of his rights
by Colonel Carter W. Clarke, gave the following sworn testimony:
COL. CLARKE. Will you state your name, rank and station.
Gen. KRONER. Hayes A. Kroner, Brigadier General. Station: Rio de Janeiro,
Military Attache.
COL. CLARKE. When did you first come on duty in G-2, War Department General
Staff?
Gen. KRONER. About the first of March 1941.
Col. CLARKE. What were your duties at that time?
Gen. KRONER. I was assigned to the British Empire Section of the Intelligence
Branch, G-2 but before taking up those duties I was sent to England for a
period of observation of the war. I returned from England early in June, about
the middle of July 1941, and took up my duties of Chief of the British Empire
Section, G-2 at that time.
Col. CLARKE. How long did you continue on that duty?
Gen. KRONER. Approximately one month.
COL. CLARKE. And then what did you do?
Gen. KRONER. About the middle of July I was informed by the retiring Chief of
the Intelligence Branch, Col. C. H. Mason, that he was leaving G-2 and that he
had been instructed to turn the Branch over to me as the next senior officer.
I immediately took over charge of the Branch and for the next several months
was acting in charge and later on I was appointed Chief of the Branch. To the
best of my memory it was about September 17 that an order was issued by the
Executive Officer, G-2 appointing me as the Chief of the Intelligence Branch,
which position I [2] held until sometime in the month of December, when
General Lee became Acting Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2 and I was then
verbally relieved from Chief of Intelligence Branch and made Deputy to General
Lee.
Col. CLARKE. What did the Intelligence Branch consist of principally?
Gen. KRONER. I found the Intelligence Branch, in July '41, to consist of a
very small Administrative Section and of several geographic sections and an
Air Section. The Administrative Section was in process of transition. Because
of the impact of the war and more information coming into G-2, there was a
greater need for proper handling and dissemination of that information. The
only geographic section of G-2 which appeared to be expanding at that time was
the Latin American Section. By the 10th of October_referring here to the
official chart on record_the Intelligence Branch consisted of a headquarters
or the Administrative Section, Contact Section, Situation Section,
Dissemination Section, and the Air and geographic sections composed of the
following: Air Section, British Empire Section, Western European Section,
Central European Section, Eastern European Section, South-
Page 43
ern European Section, Far East Section, and the Latin American Section. The
several European sections had been set up to deal with the increased
information coming in from the European war and, together with the British
Empire Section, it was considered adequate to handle the war in Europe. The
Latin American Section was expanding for obvious reasons of hemisphere
defense. The Far Eastern Section at this time had not undergone any material
change, so far as I remember, for several months. This organization, with a
few changes, continued during my tenure of office as Chief of the Branch. The
second exhibit of the organization chart of December 5, 1941 indicates that.
Col. CLARKE. I understand you to say then that you were Chief of the
Intelligence Group from about July through Pearl Harbor, December 7?
Gen. KRONER. Yes.
Col. CLARKE. During that time was there any recommendation made_first let me
ask you this_who was the Chief of the Far Eastern Section?
Gen. KRONER. Col. R. S. Bratton.
Col. CLARKE. During that time was there any recommendation made to you as
Chief of the Group for any increase in personnel [3] or expansion of its
intelligence gathering activities?
Gen. KRONER. Not any to give me any trouble_there was some minor decrease of a
clerk or two and perhaps one officer, I don't remember, but nothing in the
line of expansion as I have referred to in the European Section. I would say
this further, that one of their Far East experts, Col. Pettigrew, was taken
from the Far Eastern Section at that time to assist in the reorganization of
the Headquarters dissemination, so that I had very close to me at that time an
experienced Far East officer on my staff.
Col. CLARKE. Who was that?
Gen. KRONER. Pettigrew. It was, I think, worthy of note just here that Col.
Betts, who was the Chief of the Situation subsection, whom I called my G-2-G-3
officer on my own staff, Col.