Buzz
After Edward Snowden’s revelations about the NSA’s PRISM surveillance program, I’ve often heard the World War II saying ‘loose lips sink ships’ being referenced. But how seriously are we meant to interpret that? Have there been any instances where intelligence leaks directly caused the loss of a U.S. naval vessel?
Possibly. Throughout naval history, there have been moments of security lapses. At the same time, ships, boats, and lives have been lost. However, it’s typically difficult to connect these incidents directly to a breach of security. There’s usually a correlation, but not a direct cause-and-effect. In one such case, the person whose words might have jeopardized the ships was a congressman.
During World War II, national security concerns reached unprecedented levels in U.S. history, and secrecy became essential for both security and the war effort. Civilians were reminded of this through “loose lips” posters, while soldiers stationed overseas were given pamphlets emphasizing the same message…
Silence is security — If breaches of protective measures are critical in written messages, they are catastrophic in spoken conversations. Safeguard your words just as you would your letters, and exercise even greater caution. While a harmful letter can be censored, careless talk is direct communication to the enemy. When you return home during wartime, your words must remain guarded, and your written communication should follow self-imposed censorship. This requires courage. Do you have it, or will you let your comrades and your nation pay the price for your bravado? You’ve faced the frontlines; this is the ‘home front’ you must confront as well.
Had someone shared this wisdom with Andrew J. May, things might have turned out differently. May, a Kentucky Democrat, served in the House of Representatives from 1931 to 1947 and chaired the House Military Affairs Committee during World War II. In the summer of 1943, May and other members of the House visited the Pacific Theater, where they were briefed on operations and intelligence. Upon returning, May held a press conference and inadvertently revealed too much of what he had learned.
May reassured the American public that they didn’t need to worry about their submarines, explaining that the Navy had discovered the Japanese were setting their depth charges—a type of anti-submarine explosive—to detonate at shallow depths, allowing the submarines to evade them. His remarks were widely printed in newspapers, including those in Hawaii and other coastal areas in the Pacific where submarines were active.
Vice Admiral Charles Lockwood, commander of the U.S. submarine fleet in the Pacific, placed the blame for this leak squarely on May’s shoulders, suggesting it led to the Japanese adapting their tactics and causing American casualties. “I hear Congressman May said the [Japanese] depth charges are not set deep enough,” Lockwood noted in a letter to another officer. “He would be pleased to know [they] set 'em deeper now.” Lockwood estimated that May’s “recklessness” directly resulted in the loss of ten submarines and 800 sailors.
However, Lockwood’s claims and estimates may not be entirely accurate. The Navy’s “Enemy Anti-Submarine Measures” report, which summarized the Pacific fleet’s experience with Japanese anti-submarine weapons, makes no mention of any adjustment in depth charge deployment following May’s leak. It also indicates the Japanese never fully understood the depth capabilities of American submarines. Even if the depth charges were set to lower levels, the Japanese were still unaware of the exact depth they needed to target in order to neutralize the subs. Additionally, the Naval History Division’s report on submarine losses during the war acknowledges the use of depth charges in the attacks that led to the loss of ten submarines, but it could not definitively explain the reasons behind each loss. Some of the circumstances surrounding those losses were only revealed years later through enemy reports or other secondary sources, which may not be entirely reliable or conclusive.
Representative May, on the other hand, faced no repercussions for his indiscretion, other than some negative media attention. However, he was later embroiled in a scandal, convicted of accepting bribes and abusing his position to secure contracts and favors for a munitions company. He served nine months in prison and was eventually pardoned by President Truman, but his political career was effectively over.
