Pearl Harbor Historian Divergent Views On The Incident
In many occasions, historians do agree on certain issues. Pearl Harbor incident however led to divergent views from historians. This relates to the Second World War when Japan carried out attacks United State on naval base situated in Hawaii. This is causing it to revenge on Japan. The citizens seemed to be dissatisfied and had questions about the incident. There were concerns on whether the attack was provoked, whether it was a deliberate action and if the government had some knowledge about it in advance. Charles A Beard, a Pearl Harbor historian was among the first person to raise concerns.
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 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.
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, in his memoir was questioning the intelligence of the government on handling the issue. Deep concerns by Gordon W. Prange were on the mistakes done by the administration of the United States by interpreting wrongly the intentions of Japan. He however did not seem to be convinced that Roosevelt made any deliberations to engage Japan in a 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 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.
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, in his memoir was questioning the intelligence of the government on handling the issue. Deep concerns by Gordon W. Prange were on the mistakes done by the administration of the United States by interpreting wrongly the intentions of Japan. He however did not seem to be convinced that Roosevelt made any deliberations to engage Japan in a 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.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário