Pearl Harbor: John T. Flynn Wasn't the Originator of the "Advance Warning" Thesis
But The Academics and Mainstream Sources Give Him Credit for it Anyway
Journalist John Thomas Flynn (1882-1964) was an interesting fellow.
He was a contributor to the New Republic, Harper’s, Colliers, among others. A leading liberal lion during the 1930’s.
A Georgetown Law grad, he became a journalist, the editor of the New Haven Register, and at one point was the Financial Editor of the New York Globe.
He’s not easy to characterize in our modern partisan matrix. He was neither right nor left. At the time he was called a liberal. Some try to say he’s the “Old Right,” but he’s more properly perhaps just a passionate journalist seeking the truth. By the mid-30s he was strongly opposed to Roosevelt. He was consistently anti-war, and anti-militarism. Frankly I like that about him, he’s hard to pigeonhole, and as a result probably has unique well-informed opinions.
He’s given credit as the originator of the ‘advance warning’ thesis for the Pearl Harbor attack.
Here’s his page on Wikipedia to that effect:
Here’s the page on Pearl Harbor Advance-Knowledge Conspiracy Theory:
This ‘advance knowledge’ thesis is of course decried as a ‘fringe theory’ and a ‘conspiracy theory’ among academics and those wishing for official approval and sanction before the high holy court of mainstream acceptance, speaking circuits, the milquetoast crowd.
Flynn is fingered as the culprit in the sordid scheme of besmirching the saintly FDR by the mainstream sources. Specifically, they blame Flynn’s two monographs: The Truth About Pearl Harbor (Oct. 1944), first published in the Chicago Tribune, and The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor (Sept. 1945).
Chicago Tribune, Oct. 22, ‘44, page 14:
Here are the two monographs, they link to the full PDF’s for your review:
Here’s a basic summation of the two pamphlets, below. What you’ll notice is that, despite what the academics claim, the “Truth About Pearl Harbor” monograph doesn’t claim advance warning of the Pearl Harbor attack per se, Flynn rather says that FDR’s diplomacy was to create a state of war with Imperial Japan much prior to the attack.
This isn’t advance knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, this is laying the diplomatic foundation for war with Japan. They are distinctly two different things.
Flynn’s 1944 “The Truth About Pearl Harbor”:
* FDR wanted war and pursued it, he especially wanted it against Germany and fought an illegal war in the Atlantic against Germany in 1940-41.
* FDR needed to fool the Americans into war, to get around the isolationists
* FDR had no idea Japan would attack Pearl specifically, the military wasn’t sure where Japan would strike out at first
* The basic thesis is that FDR set the stage and was surprised at the target. This seems obvious and non-controversial. This is basically a 3/6 on our “FDR-Knew” scale.
Flynn’s 1945 “The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor”:
* Pointing out the hypocrisy between the claim that FDR was blameless because it was a ‘surprise attack’ but that Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short deserved a court martial because they were not prepared for the surprise attack.
* Flynn points out a variety of the lies and inconsistent statements by FDR to this point about blaming Kimmel and Short.
* Flynn lays out the Amb. Grew timeline, showing that war with Japan was planned as far back as 1940.
* Pearl and the Pacific Fleet were stripped of ships and defensive weapons necessary for a proper defense of the islands.
* FDR proposed invading China to get Japan to attack the US earlier, before Nov. 14, 1941
* Having broken the Japanese diplomatic codes, it was easy for FDR to steer the country into war knowing exactly what Japan was thinking.
* FDR was criminally negligent in keeping Pearl Harbor in a stand-down position, but did not know that the Japanese would attack Pearl, thinking instead they would likely attack the British
* The basic thesis is, again, that FDR set the stage and was surprised that the Japanese focused on Pearl Harbor. FDR was the one responsible for the fleet being unprepared for attack. Again this is basically a 3/6 on our “FDR-Knew” scale.
This is yet another lesson never to trust the mainstream academics in their characterization of source material, or of past historical subjects.
John Flynn was not the origin of the “advance warning” thesis. The controversy about a court martial for Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short focused the public attention on that specific question of who knew what and when, and the facts leaking out of Hawaii combined with the news accounts for months prior were enough to show the country that there was something very suspicious going on.
Politica | PEARL HARBOR SERIES:
Pt 15 - Surviving Parents Want to Know How and Why
Pt 14 - Senior Soviet Amb. Toured Honolulu day before Pearl Harbor Attack
Pt 13 - No, White Men Probably Weren't Piloting Pearl Harbor Attack Planes
Pt 12 - FDR was Jap Oil 'Appeaser'... Until he Cut it Off a Week Later to Start a War
Pt 11 - A Week Prior to the Pearl Attack, Admirals Discuss "Offensive" Against Jap Fleet on the Move
Pt 10 - Fr. Aloysius Schmitt & John Austin aboard the sinking USS Oklahoma
Pt 9 - Weak Leads-- Pearl Military Judge Drafts Martial Law Before Attack
Pt 8 - Reporter Tells US Japs Will Attack After Midnight on Dec. 6th
Pt 7 - Toward a Taxonomy of Claims about “Advance Knowledge” of the Attack
Pt 6 - Japs Were Trying to Escape Panama on Dec. 2nd
Pt 5 - Yes, there was Warning of the Pearl Harbor Attack
Pt 4 - ‘Very Bitter’ Housewife in ‘45 Notes Flaws in the Official Story
Pt 3 - Lloyd’s of London Cancelled Insurance Policies in August 1941
Pt 2 - Tips About The Pearl Harbor Attack 77 Years Late
Pt 1 - Pearl Harbor Revisionism