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 argues in his book that American president Roosevelt did a deliberate action to force Japan to fight the United State. Basil Rauch, in his book differed from this and said that America never knew this attack would happen. The government however knew the occurrence of a possible attack somewhere. He also agreed that indeed United States had done something that would have prompted Japan to launch an attack.
Richard N. Current gave a stronger challenge to this on this issue. He argued that Stimson did anticipate an attack but not on American territory. He anticipated it to be on possessions in the Pacific of either Dutch or British.
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.
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 argues in his book that American president Roosevelt did a deliberate action to force Japan to fight the United State. Basil Rauch, in his book differed from this and said that America never knew this attack would happen. The government however knew the occurrence of a possible attack somewhere. He also agreed that indeed United States had done something that would have prompted Japan to launch an attack.
Richard N. Current gave a stronger challenge to this on this issue. He argued that Stimson did anticipate an attack but not on American territory. He anticipated it to be on possessions in the Pacific of either Dutch or British.
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.
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment