Historians have been known to agree on various occasions. The incident at Pearl Harbor brought contradictions among historians. This incident was the day that Japan launched on an attack on American naval base during the Second World War. This launch was in Hawaii and it aroused America to exact revenge. There were many questions raised by citizens. Among them was whether the nation knew of the attack, whether it was unprovoked and if it was a deliberate plan to make Japan force America into war. Pearl Harbor historian Charles A Beard was among the first to question the official version.
Beard in his book upheld that United States deliberated the move to leave Japan with no choice other than launching the attack. This move was by America cutting off Japan from accessing raw materials. The materials were very important to Japan for its military adventure. This forced them to strike even though it was a risk as the action would arouse the United States. In any way, the government must have had the knowledge of attack in before.
Thomas Fleming in his book argues that President Roosevelt deliberately and deceitfully forced America into war with Japan. Basil Rauch in his book refuted the argument by Beard, saying that America did not know of any attack in advance. It however knew that there would be an attack somewhere. America though had made some efforts to challenge Japan to take the first shot.
More varying views came from Richard N. Current concerning the attack. In his book, it is true that Stimson had anticipated a possible attack though not in America. An attack would be launched in the Pacific where possessions of the Dutch and Britain belonged.
He argued that Stimson had no intension of maneuvering Japan to attack America but rather to attack on the possession which would be perceived to be an attack on America and the congress would approve a war declaration.
Roberta Wohlstetter thought of this issue on a different perspective. She did not put much weight on whether America wanted an attack or did not want it. She talked of the question as to whether the government had some information of the attack before it happened. Her conclusion was that the government had warning, enough to anticipate the possibility of attack. It however interpreted this evidence incorrectly.
Admiral Edwin questioned the intelligence of America on the incident in his memoir. Gordon W. Prange alleged that the administration of Roosevelt was responsible for making a mistake and interpreting the intentions of Japan incorrectly. He argued the government had enough information to predict it but failed. However, Edwin refuted the claims that the president took a deliberate move to force Japan into war.
Lastly, claims emerged later long after the incident. This was from John Toland who in his book alleged that the navy had information about the attack after fresh evidence came up. He was convinced that the president had known the possibility of it happening and yet allowed it as he knew that this would arouse the nation. However, Toland like fellow writers could not give enough evidence.
Beard in his book upheld that United States deliberated the move to leave Japan with no choice other than launching the attack. This move was by America cutting off Japan from accessing raw materials. The materials were very important to Japan for its military adventure. This forced them to strike even though it was a risk as the action would arouse the United States. In any way, the government must have had the knowledge of attack in before.
Thomas Fleming in his book argues that President Roosevelt deliberately and deceitfully forced America into war with Japan. Basil Rauch in his book refuted the argument by Beard, saying that America did not know of any attack in advance. It however knew that there would be an attack somewhere. America though had made some efforts to challenge Japan to take the first shot.
More varying views came from Richard N. Current concerning the attack. In his book, it is true that Stimson had anticipated a possible attack though not in America. An attack would be launched in the Pacific where possessions of the Dutch and Britain belonged.
He argued that Stimson had no intension of maneuvering Japan to attack America but rather to attack on the possession which would be perceived to be an attack on America and the congress would approve a war declaration.
Roberta Wohlstetter thought of this issue on a different perspective. She did not put much weight on whether America wanted an attack or did not want it. She talked of the question as to whether the government had some information of the attack before it happened. Her conclusion was that the government had warning, enough to anticipate the possibility of attack. It however interpreted this evidence incorrectly.
Admiral Edwin questioned the intelligence of America on the incident in his memoir. Gordon W. Prange alleged that the administration of Roosevelt was responsible for making a mistake and interpreting the intentions of Japan incorrectly. He argued the government had enough information to predict it but failed. However, Edwin refuted the claims that the president took a deliberate move to force Japan into war.
Lastly, claims emerged later long after the incident. This was from John Toland who in his book alleged that the navy had information about the attack after fresh evidence came up. He was convinced that the president had known the possibility of it happening and yet allowed it as he knew that this would arouse the nation. However, Toland like fellow writers could not give enough evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment