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.
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 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.
Richard N. Current even gave a more challenge to this issue. He alleged that Stimson anticipated this attack but probably not in the U. S. According to Stimson, it must have been on the Dutch or British possessions, in the Pacific.
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.
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, 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.
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 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.
Richard N. Current even gave a more challenge to this issue. He alleged that Stimson anticipated this attack but probably not in the U. S. According to Stimson, it must have been on the Dutch or British possessions, in the Pacific.
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.
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, 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.
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.
About the Author:
Our unique web page contains valuable information about Pearl Harbor historian. To receive further details, review the main website by clicking on the link http://www.pearlharborchild.com today.
No comments:
Post a Comment