Posted on 03/31/2011 5:54:49 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
One reason I post on Free Republic is because I can be reasonably sure that nearly all other posters here understand and respect the basic religious and philosophical values of our Founders, so we won't be sinking into intellectual quick-sand on questions like, "what is truth" or is there even such a thing?
If you go back and look at the context where I've capitalized "Truth," I think you'll see it's short for "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
And the point is, it's a serious, solemn goal that we wish to achieve, even if that may be impossible under these circumstances.
So a search for Truth does not mean we necessarily close our minds to any arguments, only that we begin by acknowledging that we haven't yet found it.
Sorry about the sentence which offended you. If we agree on these points, that's a pretty good start, I'd say.
CougarGA7: "Moving forward, I again would encourage you to read Clausen's book.
It will not answer all your questions.
It does not exonerate FDR's inner circle, but it is well worth the read."
Congratulations, pal, you've now sold me Clausen's book.
It'll arrive this week, and I'll read it next week, while traveling.
Clausen's will make the fourth book in my Pearl Harbor collection, added to Prange, Stinnett and Victor.
What I expect from Clausen is to be introduced to a large number of people lower down the chain of command, whose failure to perform contributed to the disaster.
What I don't expect is any serious focus on how our top leadership contributed to confusion in the ranks.
But who knows, maybe I'll be surprised. ;-)
CougarGA7: "On top of that I suggest you read a portion of the Pearl Harbor files. Specifically, I suggests volumes 12 through 20 with an emphasis on 14 through 16.
I also suggest you go ahead and read Prange's book.
None of these sources are perfect, but they will give you a better overall picture."
I have Prange's book and have read it.
I suspect it's flawed because Prange himself didn't live to complete it, and it was published years before data released in the 1990s became available.
It would be interesting to speculate what Prange himself might have made of the new data -- surely no one was better qualified to evaluate it.
Pearl Harbor Investigation reports are available on-line for free to people who own Kindle or Nook, etc.
I've long, long considered investing in one of those, and have at times discussed them with book-store sales people, always in the end walking away.
For one reason, I'm not certain they provide all the features I'd want, and maybe if I wait a little longer, they'll become more versatile. We'll see...
CougarGA7: "That is what was sent and it is plain as day.
Do not start a fight, but not at the expense of defending yourself."
The fact remains that all five of those "war warnings" were constructed in the pattern of "do this but don't do that," and the net effects are political documents more useful to CYA Washington than actually provide clear guidance for Hawaii.
None of the five warnings say anything about air attack on Hawaii.
Three times they say, "Undertake no offensive action until Japan has committed an overt act."
Five times the key alert to Short warns him of sabotage, subversion, espionage, propaganda and the need to avoid unnecessary publicity.
Twice they say, "You are directed to undertake such reconnaissance and other measures as you deem necessary..."
but then followed immediately by "but these measures should be carried out so as not, repeat not, to alarm civil population or disclose intent."
Of course, long-range recon could not help but "alarm civil population" and "disclose intent".
And if there is no expected air-attack, then there is no long-range reconnaissance to "deem necessary."
That, along with data showing Washington knew an attack was likely, is the essence of Kimmel & Short's defense.
CougarGA7: "Finally, I have no expectations that you will accept my word on the errors on Stennett's and Victor's work.
I believe that any criticisms are in your mind an affront on you personally though it is not the intention."
You're missing the point of my response here.
I'm saying, first, that what you call "errors" may be nothing more than your misunderstanding of the authors' intent -- so don't be so quick to condemn what you may not fully understand.
Second, and more important, as I read these books, their arguments are very robust, meaning they make their points over and over again with different data from different sources, all leading to the same conclusions.
Therefore, even if a critic can cherry-pick some statement or other to dispute, that does not necessarily invalidate the entire argument made by Stinnett, Victor & others.
They present just too much data for anyone to destroy their entire argument with only a couple of successful attacks.
So what's required is a comprehensive analysis of everything they present.
Anything less is not real scholarship, just hatchet-work, imho.
CougarGA7: "willing to embark on a serious independent research project on the causation of Pearl Harbor I will support you in any way I can in your research."
I don't for a minute believe that I'm the right person to do this work.
There must be dozens, if not hundreds, of scholars vastly more qualified who've already gone down this road -- or are now doing research.
People like Prange and Stinnett spent years, decades even, digging and interviewing witnesses.
So anyone who does not thoroughly understand all of that previous data is just not going to be qualified to pass judgment on bits & pieces of it.
Indeed, it's probably too big of a job for just one person.
What's really needed is a team of experts, some in cryptography, some in Japanese, some in Washington politics and military history -- and, who knows, maybe a psychologist to get inside some of their brains?
And surely all this has been done before, and people like Prange, Stinnett and Victor have drawn on those resources.
I don’t think I’m misunderstanding Stinnett. The errors I see in his book are the same as the errors that other scholars have pointed. He on many occasions takes data out of context that changes the meaning of what was said. Stinnett goes out of his way to ignore the fact that these men were told to defend themselves in the same message in which they were instructed not to start the fight. This is an error of omission and is not the only one in his book.
Good to see that you are trying to expand your research. As to the Pearl Harbor hearings, I’d just download them online and read just those few I suggested. These are the documentary volumes of the hearings and contain most of the documents referred to by others. I still recommend that you read Mahan. It is important to get a feel for the mindset of the time. I would add to that Billy Mitchell’s “Winged Defense” to that too if you want to see some of the errant steps towards the proper use of air power at this time in history. Mistakes as to what air power could and could not do played a strategic roll in the disaster at Pearl Harbor. Like I’ve said, there was blame to go around on all levels, but some of it was a faulty mindset. Honestly, if I was to write on the subject, I would spend a lot of time on this very issue. It sets the stage for a series of very bad decisions by the commanders on the ground as well as their leadership in Washington and I don’t think anyone has really paid the attention to this point that they should have.
Homer is going to post my review on Clausen’s book this week and I have begun work on an individual thread that is solely dedicated to discussion of the causes of Pearl Harbor. I plan to have it ready by the 1st of June. That should give a forum without timeline restrictions that everyone can recognize and chime in on if they wish.
I suspect your charges are likely false, and, more to the point: they tell me that you really didn't study Stinnett at all, but just took others' criticisms and claimed them as your own.
Here's what you need to consider if you want to do some seriously valid analysis:
That's why I don't see where all those critics have even layed a hand on Stinnett's, Victor's or the others' basic ideas.
By the way, if anyone seriously did want to "debunk" Stinnett, a place to begin might be with pages 264 through 269 (paperback edition), and then go on to explain in detail why pages 272 through 277 don't really say what they say.
;-)
I have given you a clear example just in this thread alone. These criticisms are my own. The fact that they match other scholars only adds strength to my own assessment of his work. You have gotten confused as to what order they came about. I evaluated Stinnett's work before I read any other's assessment of him. Victor's work is even worse. Of the two I can say unequivocally that Victor's is the poorest work on the subject I've ever seen produced. Though I hear Layton's work is pretty bad too, I've never read it.
Let's see if I can provide some perspective on this subject.
As a historian, you doubtless know the names of both David Irving and John Keegan?
Keegan is possibly the most highly respected living historian, while Irving the most thoroughly discredited.
Yet Irving was not always in such disrepute -- years ago he was said to have done some good work and received favorable comments from people like John Keegan.
What happened was that Irving fell in with a bad crowd, basically, he went a little nuts, and then hoping to restore his reputation, brought a libel suit against a woman who, it turned out, was fully able to defend herself.
In her defense, Deborah Lipstadt brought in, among others, Professor Richard J. Evans, historian and Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, as an expert witness.
"Evans' report was the most comprehensive, in-depth examination of Irving's work:'Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject.
All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian.' "
Irving lost his own suit, was ordered to pay court costs, which forced him to declare bankruptcy. And it went even further down hill from there, when he wound up in an Austrian jail for the crime of, basically, lying.
I mention all this here because it serves as an abject lesson to wannabe "historians" who imagine that "history" is their personal play-ground to be re-written in whatever shape suits their fantasies. Beware!
And my point is, Cougar, there's nothing I've ever seen suggesting, much less proving, that any recent Pearl Harbor author -- even Toland, much less Stinnett or Victor -- fall into the David Irving class of historian-scoundrels.
Yes, maybe, objectively, factually speaking, that's where they belong -- but first: I don't believe it for a moment, and second: to "prove" such a charge, you'd need a real historian of the recognized caliber of, say, a Richard Evans on the Holocaust, to thoroughly analyze and critique their work.
Then you'd want other scholars to critique that work.
Now you'd begin to get some sense as to just which data you can rely on, and which not so much.
But to my knowledge, none of this has been done.
Yes, the name Jacobsen is sometimes mentioned, but as with Major Clausen, I can't consider him a "disinterested party."
As far as I'm concerned, these are people defending both themselves and their buddies.
That doesn't necessarily mean they are lying, but it does suggest we need someone more disinterested to take a closer look.
I'll be very interested when that happens.
I don’t believe I’m comparing them to Keegan or Irving. I am only giving my assessment of their work.
I think it's important to understand exactly what you are saying here
It's one thing to BMC (b*tch, moan & complain) that authors like Stinnett are making you do more work than you'd like, to check out their references.
Fine, OK, sure -- Stinnett is a "bad boy" and deserves to be criticized, so slap his hands, for making your job more difficult.
Even without knowing the whole story, I'll take your word for that.
It's totally, totally different to claim that Stinnett et al are lying, or misusing or misrepresenting, mischaracterizing or even inventing their data just to advance an agenda.
Such charges require serious proof, of which I've seen nothing.
I have said that he takes sources out of context and I have provided you examples. The fact that you can’t see it is not my problem.
First, I don't agree with your examples.
Second, even if we agree that some examples are subjects of dispute, what about thousands of other statements by Stinnett which have not been seriously challenged?
I really don’t care if you don’t agree with my examples. It’s pretty clear to anyone who is not so blinded by their preconceived notions.
It's obvious to me that "preconceived notions" are all on the side of those defending the FDR administration against any and all suggestions of prior knowledge.
Again, the burden of proof is on you. Not me. You are the one making the accusations of FDR’s foreknowledge.
I doubt if legal "proof" is even possible, but such evidence as there is has been summarized by authors like Toland, Stinnett and Victor.
And those with "preconceived notions" that Washington had no foreknowledge have attacked these authors with the scholarly equivalent of wet noodles -- ad homonyms, complaints about specificity of references and claims regarding some quotes supposedly taken out of context.
And none of the criticisms amounts to a hill of beans, so the basic argument stands:
Indeed, the real bottom line is that CougarGA7 doesn't even disagree with that statement -- only insisting Washington's failure to warn was more by accident than any intention.
I say postpone this discussion until the December 7th installment.
Not even close to what I've said. Please go re-read and try again.
In fact, you've never disagreed with that statement.
Nor have you provided a clearer summary of your conclusions.
Nor, I'm beginning to think, will you ever.
We've barely even scratched the surface of this discussion.
What you've seen so far is more-or-less a debate over the "shape of the table" on which the cases will be laid out.
Of course, it does suggest something about how the debate itself will proceed...
;-)
I’ve been quite clear. Please go re-read and try again.
As your response here again demonstrates, you've been unclear and evasive from the beginning.
Negative. Try again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.