And this explanation about the lack of offensive submarine activity late war (several sources I've read mention this, but this is the first one where the commander disagrees with it, finds it disagreeable, yet necessary. The hatred and blame game between army and navy throughout these US interviews is astonishing, this is one of the few were the army was not really attacked
Q. Early in the war, for the first year of the war perhaps, your submarines made us a lot of trouble but later on we had very little trouble with them. We thought that perhaps you were using them for supply and not attack; is that correct?
A. You are right, that was the very reason. That reason was not satisfactory for the submarine officer because he wanted our submarines to be used to attack your fleet, not using them for transport.
Q. Aside from the personal wishes of the submarine officers, do you feel it was wise from the point of view of the war as a whole?
A. Aside from the feeling of the submarine officers, that is still not wise.
Q. Why, then, were they used for transports?
A. Headquarters made that decision. I do not know the reason because the Naval General Staff made the decision, and several times I reported to them that these tactics were not wise; but nothing was done.
Q. Do you feel that perhaps this was done due to the Army pressure rather than being the decision of naval officers?
A. In my personal opinion, I feel that Army request was the reason. Another reason is that our headquarters thought that the supplying for the islands is very important because many soldiers were on several islands, and they would have no food or material for fight; that is important matter.