Sunday, August 10, 2014

Pearl Harbor Historian Views Concerning The Issue

By Tanisha Berg


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 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 alleged that Stimson never intended to maneuver Japan to launch this attack. He wanted Japan to attack the possessions by Dutch or Britain which would look like an attack on America. This would arouse the Congress to assign 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 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:



No comments:

Post a Comment