|
Post by ieshima on Apr 5, 2019 9:20:34 GMT -6
I am a student in my last semester of college. I was required to take a history elective to get my degree, so I decided to endulge myself and take the "History of WW2" course, since i love the topic.
My professor recommended we read this book, Day of Deciet, by Robert Stinnett, as much of the assigned reading uses it as a source. I did some research into the book, which I normally do before I read, and I have to say that I have concerns.
I have put off reading it until now, but the Prof. suggested I use it as a source in my final paper, which is about japanese naval doctrine in ww2. He said it should give me new insights into the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Should I read it or not? Please give reasons below.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 5, 2019 10:32:41 GMT -6
I am a student in my last semester of college. I was required to take a history elective to get my degree, so I decided to endulge myself and take the "History of WW2" course, since i love the topic. My professor recommended we read this book, Day of Deciet, by Robert Stinnett, as much of the assigned reading uses it as a source. I did some research into the book, which I normally do before I read, and I have to say that I have concerns. I have put off reading it until now, but the Prof. suggested I use it as a source in my final paper, which is about japanese naval doctrine in ww2. He said it should give me new insights into the attack on Pearl Harbor. Should I read it or not? Please give reasons below. I personally would not read it because it is pure rubbish. I have talked to Pearl Harbor Vets and read numerous books on the subject. I have also read the FDR Safe documents on line. Did the US provoke the Japanese? They did not need to be provoked all we did was try to use economic sanctions to get them to leave China alone. The Japanese had a problem with natural resources like iron ore, oil, nickel, rubber, copper etc. All the necessary raw materials that are required to maintain an industrial society. These were all available from other nations. We provided them with 80% of their oil and shipped it to them. They decided to become an aggressive nation and paid the price. The Japanese had to import rice from China because they did not have enough arable land due to their mountainous terrain. If you are serious about studying Pearl Harbor or the beginnings of WW2, here are a many excellent books to read: Bankrupting the Enemy by Edward S. Miller Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan by Herbert P. Bix Rising Sun by John Toland From Mahan to Pearl Harbor b Sadao Asada War Plan Orange by Edward S. Miller Pacific War Papers by Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon - This is a valuable collection of Japanese Documents of World War 2 Numerous books by H.P. Willmott
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Apr 5, 2019 10:49:49 GMT -6
I've read the book and I consider it an 'outlier' in the history of the lead-up to the Japanese attack; IMO it has a number of flaws, and the author did not remotely convince me that its premise was factual or accurate.
Bear in mind I am not the type to tell someone not to read a source and thus weight the evidence/presentation/facts of the source for yourself, so I will leave it up to you to decide if it is worth your time in doing so.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 5, 2019 10:55:56 GMT -6
I've read the book and I consider it an 'outlier' in the history of the lead-up to the Japanese attack; IMO it has a number of flaws, and the author did not remotely convince me that its premise was factual or accurate.
Bear in mind I am not the type to tell someone not to read a source and thus weight the evidence/presentation/facts of the source for yourself, so I will leave it up to you to decide if it is worth your time in doing so.
I agree but he did ask if he should read it. He was asking for advice, so I have him my opinion. You have to understand and make those decisions for yourself, but help it good especially from many on this forum who have done much research.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Apr 5, 2019 12:21:07 GMT -6
I have not read the book myself, but I looked through some basis synopsis and came away with one major question: Stinnett claims that information regarding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was deliberately withheld so as to give the U.S. justification to go to war. But wouldn't being aware of that attack change nothing about the U.S. having cause and support to declare war? If the initial wave of bombers was met by a mass of P-36's, 40's and flak, it wasn't like the Japanese were going to turn around and the war be called off.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 5, 2019 13:16:10 GMT -6
I have not read the book myself, but I looked through some basis synopsis and came away with one major question: Stinnett claims that information regarding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was deliberately withheld so as to give the U.S. justification to go to war. But wouldn't being aware of that attack change nothing about the U.S. having cause and support to declare war? If the initial wave of bombers was met by a mass of P-36's, 40's and flak, it wasn't like the Japanese were going to turn around and the war be called off. It would not have made any real difference. We knew that the Japanese were going to go south after their take-over of French Indo-China. That gave them bases around Saigon for their bombers. We assumed, correctly they would go after the Philippines, Malaya, Borneo ( for the oil), the Dutch East Indies, New Britain and take Rabaul. We assumed they would use a sneak attack on Subic and other important military facilities. We assumed they would attack Wake Island and Guam. They did attack all those targets. We did not figure they would try to attack Pearl Harbor although in the last Naval War Game in the Pacific, Saratoga had done just that from about the exact position as the Japanese did. That was why the Opana Point Radar was there. After the war, we went through all the intercepted messages that we had gathered at Station Hypo and other radio intercept locations. For once, Japanese security was very good. There was nothing in those messages that would have given us any indications an attack on Pearl was imminent. We failed, and 2400 men paid the price. It's a complex story, but leaving the fleet in Pearl was against the CinC of the Pacific Fleet's judgement, and he was right. He lost his job because he went to FDR and voiced his opinion. It was meant to threaten the Japanese and make them back off. It failed. A good source is "And I was there" by Captain Edwin P. Taylor who was the Officer-In- Charge in Hawaii, for the Naval Intelligence group.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 5, 2019 13:35:17 GMT -6
I have never read the book in question and so cannot comment upon its quality. However, generally speaking, I am very skeptical of the value of conspiracy theory books as sources for any remotely-serious academic work not directly related to the conspiracy theory; books written by conspiracy theorists about their conspiracy theories are not meant to present information in an evenhanded, fair, complete, accurate, or necessarily even honest way, but rather to present information in a way that supports the author's pet theory or theories, or at least sows a seed of doubt in the mind of the reader as to whether or not the author's pet theory is nonsensical or the commonly-accepted version of history is accurate, complete, or factual.
Furthermore, it seems to me as though the subject of the book - foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor at high levels in the US government - is only tangentially related to the subject of the paper which you intend to write - Japanese naval doctrine in the Second World War. Unless it contains a reasonably-unbiased discussion of Japanese naval doctrine as it was understood in the US prior to the Second World War or something like that, I don't see what value it would have as a source for a paper on Japanese naval doctrine over other sources. It sounds to me more like your professor is trying to push the advance knowledge conspiracy - especially since you mentioned that many of the other readings for the class have used Day of Deceit as a source - than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on Apr 5, 2019 13:38:17 GMT -6
For a paper on Japanese naval doctrine something like "Kaigun" would be a much better source than something (seemingly) about the Pearl Harbor attack. Said attack was within the Japanese doctrine regarding starting wars with surprise attacks and using massed carrier forces, but otherwise the attack itself was pretty much outside the IJN's overall doctrine for fighting the United States.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 5, 2019 13:45:04 GMT -6
I have never read the book in question and so cannot comment upon its quality. However, generally speaking, I am very skeptical of the value of conspiracy theory books as sources for any remotely-serious academic work not directly related to the conspiracy theory; books written by conspiracy theorists about their conspiracy theories are not meant to present information in an evenhanded, fair, complete, accurate, or necessarily even honest way, but rather to present information in a way that supports the author's pet theory or theories, or at least sows a seed of doubt in the mind of the reader as to whether or not the author's pet theory is nonsensical or the commonly-accepted version of history is accurate, complete, or factual. Furthermore, it seems to me as though the subject of the book - foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor at high levels in the US government - is only tangentially related to the subject of the paper which you intend to write - Japanese naval doctrine in the Second World War. Unless it contains a reasonably-unbiased discussion of Japanese naval doctrine as it was understood in the US prior to the Second World War or something like that, I don't see what value it would have as a source for a paper on Japanese naval doctrine over other sources. It sounds to me more like your professor is trying to push the advance knowledge conspiracy - especially since you mentioned that many of the other readings for the class have used Day of Deceit as a source - than anything else. I would agree and I offered some books that would provide information and analysis of the events leading to the war. I agree the professor has an agenda that he is pushing. There are many books about Japanese Naval doctrine available and I have many if few titles are necessary.
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 5, 2019 14:05:17 GMT -6
There were thorough investigations done after the attack which concluded that errors and problems in passing and interpreting intelligence were at fault, not deliberate suppression or falsification. Admiral Kimmel and General Short were held responsible for unpreparedness, and the Army/Navy joint investigations found fault with Secretary of State Hull and General Marshall.
My personal belief is that FDR would never have sacrificed 'his' navy in that way, but that is an opinion... Roosevelt steadfastly held that Germany was the greater threat, and logically if he had operated to get the US attacked, it would have been something along the lines of playing up the the U-boat attacks on US destroyers, not sacrificing the Pacific Fleet in the hope that somehow that would get us into a war in Europe. I also believe - without much factual evidence - that a lot of the conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor were motivated by malice against Roosevelt, whose politics were deeply hated by some.
Never attribute to conspiracy what you can explain by complacency and stupidity... not always true, but a good first cut at any problem, especially this one. Interviewed after the Civil War, a Confederate soldier was asked if Southern internal bickering, bad railroads, poor generals or some other cause led to Confederate defeat. The veteran scratched his head and said, "Well, I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."
I suspect, when it came to Pearl Harbor, that the Japanese had something more to do with it than Roosevelt.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 5, 2019 15:03:17 GMT -6
For those of you really interested, here is the link to the Franklin D. Roosevelt Safe Files. As the lead in states, these were the National Security Classified materials mainly from WWII. docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/fdrbx.htmlAnother very complete and thorough investigation was conducted by a special investigator for the Secretary of War Stimson. The man was Henry C. Clausen and he wrote a book titled "Pearl Harbor: Final Judgement" which is the complete story of the attack. He discovered that vital intelligence was withheld by Washington for the Pearl Harbor commanders. It was the 14th part of the Japanese message sent from Tokyo to Washington breaking diplomatic relations. It wasn't sent through proper channels until 9 hours later. He also relates that in fact the commanders on scene were alerted to a surprise air attack by the Japanese and did not take adequate precautions. There were warnings, but we did not heed those warnings on-scene. This does not make FDR and his staff guilty of hiding the truth, in fact they tried to warn the officers on scene and in command. It was their mistake.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 5, 2019 17:00:32 GMT -6
….. I have put off reading it until now, but the Prof. suggested I use it as a source in my final paper, which is about japanese naval doctrine in ww2. He said it should give me new insights into the attack on Pearl Harbor. If the subject of your final paper is Japanese naval doctrine then research in books and documents the following term "Interceptive Operations". This was the basis for the Imperial Japanese Naval doctrine for a war in the Pacific. It was designed as a counter to our War Plan Orange. This is the US Naval doctrine through much of the early 20th century for a possible conflict with Japan. It was terminated in around 1940 but the basis of it, was the basis for our island hopping campaign. The IJN practiced this operational concept and designed their ships around this operational doctrine. As you read the story of this doctrine, and read how the Pacific war turned out, you will begin to see the mistakes. I will leave you a phrase that has been around for a long time "The enemy always has a say in your plans". It absolutely true for the Pacific War. Another is "No plan survives contact with the enemy". Very good luck and if you need more sources and help, we are all here to help you.
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Apr 5, 2019 17:25:18 GMT -6
... It sounds to me more like your professor is trying to push the advance knowledge conspiracy - especially since you mentioned that many of the other readings for the class have used Day of Deceit as a source - than anything else. That was my first thought to. "Ok, so a conspiracy theory is a primary source for the required reading. Not a great sign." Write what the prof wants, get your credit, and then get on with your life. Preferably with legit history. (Edit for... phone typing)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 5, 2019 17:34:15 GMT -6
... It sounds to me more like your professor is trying to push the advance knowledge conspiracy - especially since you mentioned that many of the other readings for the class have used Day of Deceit as a source - than anything else. That was my first thought to. "Ok, so a conspiracy theory is a"primary source for the required reading. Boot a great sign." Write what the prof wants, get your credit, and then get on with your life. Preferably with legit history. That is probably a good idea... in his position. But when do you stand your ground and make your point? I had the same issue during the Vietnam war with my college professors. I did not agree with their summations and I wrote what I believed to be the truth. Time proved me correct.
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Apr 5, 2019 17:50:43 GMT -6
That was my first thought to. "Ok, so a conspiracy theory is a"primary source for the required reading. Boot a great sign." Write what the prof wants, get your credit, and then get on with your life. Preferably with legit history. That is probably a good idea... in his position. But when do you stand your ground and make your point? I had the same issue during the Vietnam war with my college professors. I did not agree with their summations and I wrote what I believed to be the truth. Time proved me correct. It depends. If you're going into engineering, and need a history credit... the professor has literally all the power. Is it worth taking a chance that he's spiteful? If history is your calling.... maybe a different story. Might not be quite what you were intending for your angle, but you might check out "A Matter of Honor" by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, about the investigation post-attack and jow Husbamd Kimmel came to bear most/all of the blame. It's interesting, it's horrifying in the sense of watching a good man get railroaded, and it may fit your professor's anti-establishment bent.
|
|