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.
From the book written by Beard, America cutting of access to raw materials by Japan was deliberate. The government intended to put Japan in a situation that they were forced to attack. This is due to the fact that Japan need these materials dearly and could do anything to get them including the risk of starting a fight with United States. He also suggested that the US government had some knowledge of a possible attack.
Thomas Fleming seemed to be convinced with the same and in his book alleged that the then American president Roosevelt made a deliberate move. Basil Rauch did not agree that America knew that it was bound to happen. The government however anticipated an attack somewhere. He however agreed that the action by American government could annoy Japan and plan attacks.
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 also did not agree with the thought that Stimson intended to somehow maneuver Japan to attack. His plan was Japan to attack the possessions owned by Britain or Dutch which could obviously look like attack on United State. This was a plan to convince United State Congress to approve a declaration of war.
Another historian, Roberta Wohlster decided to view the issue on a different argument, paying little attention to whether government in anyway needed an attack from Japan. Her main concern was the presence of knowledge about the attack before its occurrence. She concluded that in fact had received enough warning and it almost obvious that Japan was to attack. They however chose to ignore the evidence.
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.
Finally, new evidence emerged years after the incident and allegations erupted. This came from John Toland alleging that in deed the navy new of that attack days before it occurred. The president therefore must have the knowledge but his view was for it to happen for this would arouse America. Even after this, Toland seemed just like previous writers with no convincing evidence.
From the book written by Beard, America cutting of access to raw materials by Japan was deliberate. The government intended to put Japan in a situation that they were forced to attack. This is due to the fact that Japan need these materials dearly and could do anything to get them including the risk of starting a fight with United States. He also suggested that the US government had some knowledge of a possible attack.
Thomas Fleming seemed to be convinced with the same and in his book alleged that the then American president Roosevelt made a deliberate move. Basil Rauch did not agree that America knew that it was bound to happen. The government however anticipated an attack somewhere. He however agreed that the action by American government could annoy Japan and plan attacks.
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 also did not agree with the thought that Stimson intended to somehow maneuver Japan to attack. His plan was Japan to attack the possessions owned by Britain or Dutch which could obviously look like attack on United State. This was a plan to convince United State Congress to approve a declaration of war.
Another historian, Roberta Wohlster decided to view the issue on a different argument, paying little attention to whether government in anyway needed an attack from Japan. Her main concern was the presence of knowledge about the attack before its occurrence. She concluded that in fact had received enough warning and it almost obvious that Japan was to attack. They however chose to ignore the evidence.
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.
Finally, new evidence emerged years after the incident and allegations erupted. This came from John Toland alleging that in deed the navy new of that attack days before it occurred. The president therefore must have the knowledge but his view was for it to happen for this would arouse America. Even after this, Toland seemed just like previous writers with no convincing evidence.
About the Author:
You can visit www.pearlharborchild.com for more helpful information about Pearl Harbor Historian Views Concerning The Issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment