Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Japanese capture theories  (Read 84534 times)

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Japanese capture theories
« Reply #75 on: August 02, 2012, 03:20:47 PM »



I agree with this.  For another thing the U-2 was clearly on an aerial photographic spy sortie.  And was clearly a military airplane.  Earhart and her Electra......well, let's say it would probably have been an embarrassing situation to have "captured" the most well known female aviatrix in the world.
If there was a camera in the plane you destroy the film. Then you notify the world how you "rescued" Earhart and accolades all around. Is Amelia going to dispute this story?

gl

Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Japanese capture theories
« Reply #76 on: August 02, 2012, 04:40:11 PM »

I thought Gary powers U2 was gathering weather data ;)

Were AE and FN not gathering pollen spores ;)
This must be the place
 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: Japanese capture theories
« Reply #77 on: August 02, 2012, 05:31:23 PM »



I agree with this.  For another thing the U-2 was clearly on an aerial photographic spy sortie.  And was clearly a military airplane.  Earhart and her Electra......well, let's say it would probably have been an embarrassing situation to have "captured" the most well known female aviatrix in the world.
If there was a camera in the plane you destroy the film. Then you notify the world how you "rescued" Earhart and accolades all around. Is Amelia going to dispute this story?

gl

I'm not certain that capability existed in 1937.  If the Japanese had captured her and deemed her a spy, chances are they would have advised the US they have a spy and used her for a negotiation lever in some way.  As a spy, that is. 

Logged

John Balderston

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 138
Re: Japanese capture theories
« Reply #78 on: August 02, 2012, 06:31:47 PM »

. . .can anyone shed some light on their overall strategic aim in 37?

Ok, I'll bite (again)  :)

In 1937 Japan's strategic aim was to maintain freedom of navigation to industrial resources in SE Asia and the Indies - rubber, tin, iron and especially petroleum.   In '37 Japan had colonies in Taiwan, Korea and Manchuria.  Military spending to protect these colonial holdings was pushing 50% of a deficit budget; resource stockpiles and foreign currency reserves were dwindling.  In Aug '37 Japan began the full-scale invasion of China, which received the full diplomatic attention of Britain and the U.S. - not good for J. as the two nations pretty much controlled Japan's access to resources, either directly through imports, or with the threat of naval control of Japan's sea lanes.  This attached WWII propaganda map provides a pretty good sense of Japan's view of the pre-war situation. 

From Japan's perspective the "mandates" - the Marianas, Carolines and Marshalls - guarded access to the all-important sea lanes.  The Marianas, which through the Bonins were a direct line to and from the home islands, were especially important.  And the Marianas were most unfortunately "perforated" by the U.S.' holding of Guam, less than 120 miles south of Saipan.  The 1923 Washington Naval Treaty had prohibited Japan, Britain and the U.S. from fortifying Western Pacific holdings - all three nations had gotten around the treaty requirement by establishing commercial operations. 

Perhaps the most adroit threading of treaty loopholes was the U.S.' establishment of regular trans-Pacific airline operations - the Pan American Airways "China Clippers".   From Nov. 1935 onward, weekly PAA clipper service from San Francisco to Macau and eventually Hong Kong (via Pearl Harbor, Midway, Wake, Guam and Philippines) established a direct link and complete infrastructure from the U.S. to China - straight through the Marianas.  Perhaps the best measure of the military value of PAA trans-Pacific ops - on Dec. 7 Japan attacked each and every PAA base across the Pacific. 
John Balderston TIGHAR #3451R
 
« Last Edit: August 03, 2012, 10:26:38 AM by John Balderston »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Japanese capture theories
« Reply #79 on: August 02, 2012, 06:32:43 PM »

I have never bought the spy explanation. The main reason being that the Japanese activities in the islands was like that of other countries with interests in the region a bit of an open secret. In any case if you have a mandate from the League of Nations then construction for administrative purposes like ports, roads, airfields etc, are to be expected. Easy to build things that have dual purposes.

My feeling is that if Earhart came down in the Gilberts somewhere (e.g. a small island) then there may have been a folk memory of a white couple and an aircraft which was transmitted in native gossip further east when the Japanese moved in and started impressing the locals as labour on other islands. Japanese treatment of the indigenous populations of the islands they occupied was pretty bad, unless like in Indonesia they were trying to make a political statement.

I wonder if the Saipan story has its origins in just such a transmitted tale.
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Japanese capture theories
« Reply #80 on: August 03, 2012, 02:22:34 AM »



Perhaps the most adroit threading of treaty loopholes was Pan American Airways' establishment of regular trans-Pacific airline operations - the "China Clippers".   Weekly PAA clipper service from San Francisco to Macau (via Pearl Harbor, Midway, Wake, Guam and Philippines) established a direct link and complete infrastructure from the U.S. to China - straight through the Marianas.  Perhaps the best measure of the military value of PAA trans-Pacific ops - on Dec. 7 Japan attacked each and every PAA base across the Pacific.
Do you think, maybe, that the islands, that just happened to have PAA bases, might have had other strategic value giving Japan a reason to attack them?

gl
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Japanese capture theories
« Reply #81 on: August 03, 2012, 03:48:21 AM »

Maybe we should look at this in the mirror so to speak and ask what military preperations were being made in 37 by the US, Great Britain and other western nations in their colonies and mandates?
Logged

pilotart

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Re: Japanese capture theories
« Reply #82 on: August 03, 2012, 07:40:11 AM »

The American military power in the Pacific had been a fairly gradual buildup (compared to Japan) up until the war in Europe began in 1939.

It wasn't until 1941 that the United States dramatically strengthened its military power in the pacific:

http://gohawaii.about.com/cs/pearlharbor/a/Lest_We_Forget1_2.htm

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/shipprofiles/p/pearlharbor.htm

http://gohawaii.about.com/od/hawaiianhistory4/ss/lest_we_forget.htm

http://www.pearlharboroahu.com/attack.htm

http://www.warbirdalley.com/cat.htm

On any night/day with solid layers of overcast clouds after October 1936, the US Navy's fleet of Catalina PBY Flying Boats could have been used for a far better aerial recon of the Japanese Activity than sending Amelia and Fred.

I do not know how far out from Hawaii the PBY patrols extended prior to December 7th 1941, but they had the capability for far-ranging  operations.

Radar was not available (before the 'Battle of Britain') to see aircraft hiding in cloud and the PBY's had a range of 2500 miles.

I doubt that Japan would have considered the threat of a clandestine spy mission by Amelia Earhart any comparison with the introduction of the PBY Aircraft to Hawaii, Midway, Guam and the Philippines.

Later on, during the war years, it was Japanese reliance on night transport, which led to the development of the "Black Cat Squadrons." These crews performed nighttime search and attack missions in their black-painted PBYs. The tactics were spectacularly successful and seriously disrupted the flow of supplies and personnel to Japanese island bases.
Art Johnson
 
« Last Edit: August 03, 2012, 10:41:02 AM by pilotart »
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Japanese capture theories
« Reply #83 on: August 03, 2012, 07:45:25 AM »

Thanks Art,

tallys with what i've been reading about.  Looks like the three big colonial powers (GB/FR/NL) did little to build up on existing military installations let alone build new ones.

Here's another thought! Why use a plane when you could slip a sub into the area.  Pre war there were less reliable anti sub systems out there and a sub would give greater flexability and a longer pesence in the area.
Logged

John Balderston

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 138
Re: Japanese capture theories
« Reply #84 on: August 03, 2012, 09:54:37 AM »

Do you think, maybe, that the islands, that just happened to have PAA bases, might have had other strategic value giving Japan a reason to attack them?

Thanks Gary - exactly the point I was trying to make.  The "PAA" bases were infrastructure established for U.S. Navy during the period when fortification was prohibited.  Japan's strategic objective was to protect the sea lanes to SE Asia and the Indies, not "occupy the Pacific".  The objective of IJN's Dec. 7 attacks (Dec. 8 W of dateline) on Pearl Harbor and elsewhere was to destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and maintain freedom of navigation in the sea lanes.
John Balderston TIGHAR #3451R
 
« Last Edit: August 03, 2012, 09:59:25 AM by John Balderston »
Logged

John Balderston

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 138
Re: Japanese capture theories
« Reply #85 on: August 03, 2012, 06:03:57 PM »

Since this is after all the "Japanese capture theory" thread, I'd like to float a cockamamie spy/capture theory I've kept an eye out for but haven't seen yet.  What if:

  • AE and FN did indeed have senior U.S. government tasking to surveil the Marshalls.  However, rather than a crazy-stupid "do your photo-recon at night and land on fumes after 20 hours". . .
  • The surveillance mission was to have originated out of Howland after the Electra had been serviced and AE/FN had rested up.  The flight either recovered at Howland, or in Hawaii.
  • Planning documents and photo equipment were onboard the Electra; personnel aboard Itasca and on Howland may or may not have know about it.
  • Contrary to the World Flight plan, AE and FN miss Howland and execute an emergency landing on the reef at Gardner.  AE and FN transmit for several days as conditions permit.
  • Imperial Japanese Navy monitoring American radio traffic pick up AE/FN transmissions and DF to Gardner area.  IJN reports contact up the chain, and requests go-ahead for search and rescue.  IJN coordinates with Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who contact State Dept. to offer assistance, which is considered but after several days is turned down. 
  • While waiting for direction from HQ, IJN ship(s) move closer to Phoenix group.  IJN continues to monitor U.S. traffic, and sees the U.S. search has moved well north of Howland.  AE and FN's transmissions are becoming desperate.  The IJN "green-lights" a search and rescue mission, and they find AE and FN on Gardner.  Both the IJN search party and the castaways are overjoyed.   :)
  • However, among AE's belongings the IJN finds AE's attache case with the surveillance plans.  Elation turns to anger, fear and resentment.  The ship's captain reports the findings up the chain, and steers a course for local HQ in the Marshalls. 
  • IJN HQ reports the situation to Foreign Affairs, who with knowledge of the "big picture" are horrified at the potential repercussions and want AE and FN returned to the U.S. right away (same as U.S. State Dept. handled Japanese spies in the 1930's).  However, the increasingly renegade IJN balks, and the military and civilian government agencies are at a stand-off. 
  • Colorado is now steaming for the Phoenix Island group.  IJN quickly dispatches a team to Gardner, who take every possible step to eradicate traces that AE and FN diverted there.
  • Through the most delicate of diplomatic methods, the civilian Japanese government communicates to U.S. government that IJN is holding AE and FN with evidence of spying.  Although both governments are gravely concerned and coordinate closely (hence rumor leaks in D.C.), however given situations in both countries are powerless to do anything short of declaring war.  IJN now "owns" the problem.
  • AE and FN may have been taken any number of places, and may have lived for a short or long time.  Either way, the event is overshadowed by the massive tide of events in Asia and the Pacific - but two of the hundreds of millions of lives that are altered or lost in the years to come.

What do you think?   ;D
John Balderston TIGHAR #3451R
 
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Japanese capture theories
« Reply #86 on: August 03, 2012, 07:20:37 PM »

I find it inconceivable that in view of this warning to AE by the Asst. Sec. of Commerce, that she would risk her life, nor do I believe that the US Government would, and use an untrained civilian to conduct covert operations on their behalf.  AE had enough on her plate than to wander that far off course and spend precious fuel to reach Howland.  Consequently, I don't believe that the Japanese Government was concerned with Amelia Earhart in the least.

Note:  I took the liberty to clean up the directive to make it more readable.

Source: Page 99 of this link that Art posted on:

Artifact Analysis / Re: Artifact 2-2-V-1 - aluminum 'skin'« on: July 31, 2012, 11:16:50 PM
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Japanese capture theories
« Reply #87 on: August 04, 2012, 12:17:38 AM »

On May 24, 2010 I attended a talk given by Professor Ernst Tonsing at the California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks California.  Professor Tonsing is a cousin of Amelia's but he was an infant when she disappeared. His great-grandmother was Amelia's grandmother, his grandmother was the sister of Amelia's mother (I think I have that right.) His talk was very interesting with many family stories and photographs. Also present was the daughter of Mr. Foudray, he had worked on the plane at Lockheed. Amelia was a friend of Mr. Foudray and Amelia had taken her flying on several occasions when she was about fifteen years old. Also present was a relative of Amelia's on her father's side.

Most of his talk was about family matters and he related a story that happened about 1951 when he was staying with his grandmother for the summer in Atchison. His grandmother and her sister, Amelia's mother, and Muriel and cousin Lucy were having a discussion in the house. (You can see a picture of Lucy with Amelia on page 24 of  Muriel's book.)

He went into the house and told the four women that he had just heard that someone had said that Amelia had been a spy. All four of the ladies emphatically said it wasn't true and that she was NOT a spy. Cousin Lucy said "Look, I've been a friend of Amelia's since childhood, we've been as close as ...I would know her better than anyone else. She was not a spy, that would have gone against everything that she stood for. She so strongly wanted to prove that a woman could fly around the world fast, she would not compromise that vision for anything."  The other women, Amelia's mother and sister included, agreed.


I have attached a video in two short files of this portion of his talk and I have also attached a photo of Professor Tonsing with the daughter of Mr. Foudray.

gl
« Last Edit: August 04, 2012, 05:52:33 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Japanese capture theories
« Reply #88 on: August 04, 2012, 03:56:44 AM »

Quote
He went into the house and told the four women that he had just heard that someone had said that Amelia had been a spy.


Gary, who was the first person who made that statement to "someone" who the declarant Professor Tonsing heard it from?  I don't have to explain Third Party Hearsay to you.  That statement was for lack of a better word ludicrous.  I am surprised that a man with a PhD would say something like that.  That comment wouldn't pass the smell test in a court of law.  As an attorney, didn't you find it kind of strange or want to question him?  And of course his immediate family members would scoff at such a comment.
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Japanese capture theories
« Reply #89 on: August 04, 2012, 05:10:49 AM »

Quote
He went into the house and told the four women that he had just heard that someone had said that Amelia had been a spy.


Gary, who was the first person who made that statement to "someone" who the declarant Professor Tonsing heard it from?  I don't have to explain Third Party Hearsay to you.  That statement was for lack of a better word ludicrous.  I am surprised that a man with a PhD would say something like that.  That comment wouldn't pass the smell test in a court of law.  As an attorney, didn't you find it kind of strange or want to question him?  And of course his immediate family members would scoff at such a comment.
It doesn't matter from whom Tonsing heard the original story, he was a kid playing outside with other kids, one of them told him, since this only precipitated the event and caused him to ask the question to Amelia's mother, sister and another close cousin. The only thing he was reporting was their response to his question, which is also hearsay, but there are quite a few exceptions to the hearsay rule that allows the introduction of hearsay testimony and the "excited utterance" exception would seem to apply here as well as "statement of personal or family history."

But why do you think Tonsing made up this story? Do you know him? Have you heard that he has a history of dishonesty? Or if you accept that he accurately reported what Amelia's relatives said, why do you think those other relatives lied? Do you have some information that shows that they had a motive to lie about this when their cousin, Tonsing, just a kid, brought it up, they were just talking among family? And this was about 14 years after the disappearance. And I did corner him after his presentation and cross-examined him about it. This was a miniscule part of his talk, maybe one minute out of an hour and a half about growing up in Kansas. He is a professor at California Lutheran University, a pretty straight laced organization.

gl

« Last Edit: August 04, 2012, 06:25:57 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up
 

Copyright 2021 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP