I have read that after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour newspapers
speculated that the pilots were German or Russian mercenaries.  Is
this an urban myth. Did the news papers carry these reports or were
they made up later

---

Clarification of Question by kemlo-ga on 17 Apr 2005 15:42 PDT

Thank you omnivorous-ga 
The story has appeared in several British history books. Likewise
because the Japanese as a race were myopic they could not fly at
night. This did appeare in a defence briefing in Malaya in 1940.

---

Clarification of Question by kemlo-ga on 18 Apr 2005 10:03 PDT

Thank you Om.
Please post first comment as an answer and claim your just rewards
Kemlo

Kemlo --

I changed the search strategy to the following and came up with an
account that Gen. George Macarthur himself "insisted they must have
been white mercenaries."
John Dower's book "War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific
War" apparently covers the stereotypes in details and quotes
MacArthur.  MacArthur was very influential, widely-quoted and
undoubtedly the source of British military speculation.  Here's an
excellent review of the 1987 book:
http://www.kevincmurphy.com/dower.html
 
I found the MacArthur quotation almost instantly by modifying the
search strategy to:
Japanese pilots racial stereotypes World War II


The sinking of a U.S. warship in China (referenced in comments) was
the Panay Incident.  It ocurred almost 15 years before Pearl Harbor:
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/panay.html

The day of Pearl Harbor there were simultaneous attacks on Guam and the
Phillipines.  I just re-read the 22 different stories in the December
8, 1941 New York Times and there's no indication that anyone but
Japanese military personnel were involved in the attack.

However, there are some surprises in the newspaper accounts from Monday, Dec. 8:
*  there's little in terms of damage reports -- only accounts of the
Oklahoma burning and a Japanese report that it had been sunk.
*  The accounts note that 104 military personnel died and 300 were
wounded.  With the perspective of 60+ years, we know that the
battleship Oklahoma lost 429 men; the Arizona (now a memorial in Pearl
Harbor) lost 1,177 and the total number killed is put at 2,400.
*  newspapers report the U.S. fleet steaming out to meet the attack,
which was inaccurate given the level of damage.
*  newspaper accounts also imply that U.S. planes at the airfields
such as Hickam Field were elsewhere and not damaged, when the
(obsolete) aircraft based there were virtually all destroyed.
*  the NY Times has a picture of one of the "likely" Japanese aircraft
carriers used in the attack, the Akagi.  (All six of Japan's
first-line aircraft carriers, Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku and
Zuikaku, were part of the attack.)

Best regards,

Omnivorous-GA

---

Request for Answer Clarification by kemlo-ga on 19 Apr 2005 15:33 PDT

Its the same with any catastrophic event, the first reports are rather
sketchy, take the recent Tsunami then over the following days and
weeks the larger picture emerges along with editorials and letters to
the editor

---

Clarification of Answer by omnivorous-ga on 19 Apr 2005 15:54 PDT

Kemlo --

I've actually ordered the book and will probably have it in 2 days. 
Let me know if there's anything in particular that you'd like. 
Certainly the MacArthur quote would be relevant and I'll try to get it
and its source for you.

And, thanks so much for the extra sum.

Best regards,

Omnivorous-GA

---

Clarification of Answer by omnivorous-ga on 22 Apr 2005 11:32 PDT

Kemlo ?

The John. W. Dower book turns out to be an excellent resource for this
question.  In the chapter ?Lesser Men and Supermen,? he writes:

?Only a week before the outbreak of war, for example, Canadian
officers attending a briefing by a British officer in Hong Kong were
informed that Japan?s aircraft were mostly obsolete, its air force had
little practice in night flying, and its pilots were myopic and thus
unable to carry out dive-bombing attacks.  One reason there was no one
in Singapore?s Air Raid Precautions headquarters on the night Japan
attacked was that shortly before that fatal date an RAF officer had
informed the air-raid wardens that Japanese could not fly in the dark.

?When Japanese aircraft swooped in on the Philippines 9 hours after
Pearl Harbor and wiped out Gen. Douglas MacArthur?s air force on the
ground, the general was caught by surprise and refused to believe that
the pilots could have been Japanese.  He insisted they must have been
white mercenaries.  At almost the same moment, the British defenders
of Hong Kong were voicing similar incredulity as they came under
pinpoint low-level fire from Japanese planes.  They ?firmly believed,?
as the official British history of the war in Asia put it, ?that
Germans must be leading the sorties.??

It goes on to say that Josef Stalin believed the same thing.  

Best regards,

Omnivorous-GA

Omnivorouse Thank you for the link to the book It will help enormesly (sic)

Kemlo --

It's the first that I've heard of the account.  Japan had been at war
in China for years and even had sunk an American ship with air attacks
earlier, casting some doubt on the account of mercenary pilots.  The
day of Pearl Harbor there were simultaneous attacks on Guam and the
Phillipines.  I just re-read the 22 different stories in the December
8, 1941 New York Times and there's no indication that anyone but
Japanese military personnel were involved in the attack.

However, there are some surprises in the newspaper accounts from Monday, Dec. 8:
*  there's little in terms of damage reports -- only accounts of the
Oklahoma burning and a Japanese report that it had been sunk.
*  The accounts note that 104 military personnel died and 300 were
wounded.  With the perspective of 60+ years, we know that the
battleship Oklahoma lost 429 men; the Arizona (now a memorial in Pearl
Harbor) lost 1,177 and the total number killed is put at 2,400.
*  newspapers report the U.S. fleet steaming out to meet the attack,
which was inaccurate given the level of damage.
*  newspaper accounts also imply that U.S. planes at the airfields
such as Hickam Field were elsewhere and not damaged, when the
(obsolete) aircraft based there were virtually all destroyed.
*  the NY Times has a picture of one of the "likely" Japanese aircraft
carriers used in the attack, the Akagi.  (All six of Japan's
first-line aircraft carriers, Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku and
Zuikaku, were part of the attack.)

Best regards,

Omnivorous-GA

Kemlo --

I didn't want to get into the area of racial stereotypes, but do know
that they existed.  Japanese soldiers and airmen were said to be "near
sighted" and their fighter aircraft flimsy -- but of course once the
war started both reputations proved highly inaccurate (and deadly).

Nonetheless it was an interesting exercise to read the NY Times
online.  Most major libraries have full-text search for it back to
1851.  A question for you: which London papers are online back to
World War II?

Best regards,

O.

The newspaper reports that indicated less damage sustained from the
attack, appears to be a clear case of misinformation. I'm sure the War
Department did not want the enemy to know exactly what damage it's
forces had sustained in the attack. By releasing lower casualty/damage
figures, the Japanese probably did not know to what extent their
attack had affected the capabilities of the Pacific Fleet.