U.S. SEIZES 28 ITALIAN, 2 NAZI, 35 DANISH SHIPS; LONDON REPORTS 5 FASCIST WAR VESSELS SUNK (3/31/41)

Larry381: "What really bothers me about your post is its snide 'guilt by association' tinge."

For many years, David Irving made at least part of his living through association with the Institute for Historical Review.
And Irving's legal troubles have not been entirely unrelated to those of more notorious neo-Nazis like Earnst Zundel.

If today Irving wanted to now disassociate himself from the IHR crowd, he could easily do so by denouncing them, their cause, and any works of Irving's which seemed to support them.

Do you suppose Irving will ever do that?

Larry381: "I'm aware of the Institute For Historical Review just as I'm aware that its a neo-nazi site. So what!"

David Irving has decades long associations with IHR.
So why should anyone take Irving more seriously than those other clowns?

Larry381: "By bringing up this site along with the name of noted Holocaust Denier, Zundel, while complaining about a source I used-you are taking this in a dark, personal direction."

It's only as "dark" as your connection to Irving.
I'm saying that Irving and Zundel are just two peas in the same pod.
So why would you want in there with them?

Larry381: "In the course of many posts on the subject of World War 2 I also happen to use books by former German, and British and American generals and soldiers-is that allowed or are you somehow also offended by this?"

That's obviously "allowed" -- assuming your sources are properly identified and put in correct context, they could be entirely valid.
On the other hand, many historical figures were notorious liars, and so you'd assume a certain responsibility to verify anything you quote.

Larry381: "unless your just the type of person that lurks about sites just waiting to be offended by something."

I don't "lurk," I post most any day I see something needing a response.
And I am not "offended" by anything, even the worst name-calling.
But I do try to correct obvious mistakes when I see them -- such as the mistake of quoting David Irving as if he were a serious historian. He's not. He writes dramatic fictions.

Larry381: "As to your original post about Irving, I agree. He's an anti-Semite but so what. People use all kinds of bad guys as sources whether they're Nazis, Commies, Racists or Liberals. But most people don't attempt to blacken someones reputation for using them."

Of course, you are free to quote the Devil, if you want to -- so long as you identify him as the Devil, and don't try to pass off his words as those of some kind of archangel in good standing.
And whenever you quote the Devil, make certain your readers can plainly see which side you are on.

Larry381: "So, just to recap-yeah Irvings an anti-Semite but you're telling me unless I stop using him as a source-I'm one too? That kind of thought process would be right at home in Nazi Germany!"

Since you repeat yourself, I'll repeat: Whenever you quote the Devil, make sure you fully identify him as the Devil, and make sure your readers can easily see whose side you are on.

I am merely pointing out the fact that you are often at least 4 days behind everyone else. The impression you leave me with is that you don't feel your argument would stand up to general scrutiny so you wait until most have already forgotten the thread before you respond to it. Personally, I don't care one way or another if that's the case. I'm just pointing out the impression you leave.

Major Clausen's vigorous, if not heavy-handed investigative work as defense council for General Marshall...

This statement is incorrect.

My opinion is that Major Clausen did whatever he believed was necessary to defend his client, General Marshall.

This statement also has the same err.

Both Stinnett and Victor focus on the heavy handedness of Clausen's approach, in "persuading" career officers to change their testimony and support General Marshall's version of events.

By "persuading" I assume you me coercing. What evidence do you, or your authors have to back up that charge?

But this is not really the point. The fact of the matter is that you said, "Every major book since (i.e., Stinnett, Toland & Victor), having more access to previously secret files, has shifted more of the blame to Washington, and to Franklin Roosevelt." But you left out Clausen's book which is right in the middle of these books. Therefore your statement is not only biased by your convenient omission, it is simply not true either since in Clausen's analysis, the blame gets spread pretty evenly.

I've finished his story of the process of his investigation and am now reading the documents that he used in his investigation that he included in his book (over 150 pages of them). I'll say right now it is a very interesting read and I highly recommend it.

Then you did not follow LS's arguments very carefully. As best I can tell, that is precisely his view -- it was all Kimmel and Short's fault.

I have discussed this with LS both here and elsewhere. My impression is that he does not place fault solely on Kimmel and Short. Additionally, I would caution you that it is in very poor taste to discuss another Freeper without pinging them to the discussion that he or she is mentioned in.

Finally, I would recommend to you that you start shopping at Amazon.com. I don't shop at bookstores anymore because I find that their selection is usually wanting and the real gems that are out there are not always the mainstream ones. Some of the books you will see me do reviews on in the near future wont be found on most bookstore shelves (but then again I've never seen Stinnett or Victor at the Borders or B&N in my area). As I said before, Stinnett and Victor's books are in some bookstores just because they sensationalize the events of Pearl Harbor. This does not necessarily make them an accurate history. Personally, I have read both books, have analyzed their use of source material and can easily tear them apart all day. Victor being the worse of the two.

Larry381: "I believe I've cited Irving two or three times on this thread, so why not start there! If you can find mistakes or untruths he's written where I used his citations I'll gladly agree with you and not use him as a source again-"

As I quoted in post #37 above, the judgment of real historians on David Irving is that nothing he writes can be trusted as true:

"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."

So when you quote Irving you are, for practical purposes, simply quoting someone's dramatic fictional account of what might have happened, not what did happen.

And normally, as long as everyone understands that I'd say: go right ahead -- quote, quote away, to your heart's content.

However, I don't agree that Free Republic should be used as a forum for promoting the restoration of Irving's oh so well deserved dis-reputation.
Irving is a scoundrel, pure and simple.
He should not be given unalloyed respect here on Free Republic, imho.

And if you continue to ally yourself with, and defend Irving, you will begin to bring the disrespect for him down on yourself.

And why do that? There are plenty of other authors -- both fiction and non-fiction -- you could easily quote instead, pal.
Do you want to explain your special affection for Irving?

Larry381: "BTW:Thanks for allowing myself and other posters permission to use other German sources as long as we "properly" identify them to your satisfaction."

And here I was starting to think you have no sense of humor. ;-)

CougarGA7: "This statement is incorrect."

As described by Stinnett and Victor, my statement is precisely correct.
The fact is that officers were required by Major Clausen to change their testimonies to better support General Marshall's desired version of events.
Some(i.e., Bratton, Smith) later recanted their new statements, according to Victor (p68):

"When the subject of witness tampering came up during the congressional hearings, Clausen and Sonnett vigorously denied any intention of getting witnesses to change their testimony or any coercion.
"Although they said so over and over, they had done both.
According to Colonel Bratton, Clausen showed him his (Bratton's) testimony to the army board, along with affidavits contradicting it and said:

'Now, after you have read these affidavits and considered the matter and tried to refresh your testimony, do you wish to make any comment on this point...in your testimony?'

"Clausen confirmed Bratton's testimony, but denied improper intent.
"In a memo about getting Bratton to revise his testimony, Clausen wrote that Bratton had originally testified that he had delivered a warning of Japan's coming attack to various top-level officials:
'But in his affidavit to me made when his memory was more refreshed, he admitted he could not recall with any degree of accuracy, and that there were no records [of the deliveries].'

"By saying Bratton's memory was "refreshed," Clausen meant he had confronted him with affidavits given by Bratton's superiors.
Bratton had to choose between saying his superiors were wrong or changing his testimony.
And Col Otis Sadtler described Clausen using the same means to get him (Sadtler) to change his testimony.
"During the congressional committee hearings, evidence about attempts to change witnesses' testimony made little impression.
Forty-seven years later, however, Clausen published a book about his investigation.
On page after page, he described his intention and efforts to get witnesses to change their testimony, including attempts literally to terrify them..."

Colonel Bratton was forced to change his testimony, but (p75):

"Weeks later he said privately that he had, in fact, made the deliveries [warnings] on December 6.
Gen. Walter Bedell Smith had testified before the army board that Bratton did make the delivery to him on the evening of December 6.
When Clausen pressed Smith about that testimony, he signed an affidavit saying that he had left the office at 7 PM (which was before Bratton made his deliveries), implying that Bratton did not make the delivery to him.
Clausen then used Smith's affidavit to persuade Bratton to change his testimony.
"Later Smith contradicted his own affidavit and affirmed his earlier testimony, stating again that Bratton did make the delivery to him on the sixth."

So, it seems to me that "heavy handed" is the appropriate term for Major Clausen's work in getting officers to change their sworn testimony to better support Clausen's client, Gen. Marshall.

CougarGA7: "By "persuading" I assume you me coercing. What evidence do you, or your authors have to back up that charge?"

Victor's chapter 5, pages 61 - 79 expands greatly on Stinnett's condensed version of page 236:

"But despite Clausen's efforts, Bratton never changed his original testimony.
The Army Board's assignment of failure to General Marshall stood.
During the congressional investigation of 1945-46, Republicans and Democrats verbally clashed over whether Bratton's affidavit was coerced under pressure from America's top generals.
Republican Congressman Frank Keefe of Wisconsin, in a quarrel with Democrat John Murphy of Pennsylvania, complained that
'There have been so many changes of testimony relative to this matter, produced by the Clausen report, and testimony under oath in the Army and Navy reports and so on that I am having difficulty finding out what the fact is.'"

Indeed.

CougarGA7: "But this is not really the point. The fact of the matter is that you said, "Every major book since (i.e., Stinnett, Toland & Victor), having more access to previously secret files, has shifted more of the blame to Washington, and to Franklin Roosevelt."

"But you left out Clausen's book which is right in the middle of these books.
Therefore your statement is not only biased by your convenient omission, it is simply not true either since in Clausen's analysis, the blame gets spread pretty evenly."

First of all, by my reckoning Clausen's book is not a "major" work, since it is sold in none of the book stores I've visited in the past year or so.

But just to satisfy you, dear CougarGA7, I've now done a more scientific analysis -- researching through Amazon, and here's what I found:

The highest ranked Pearl Harbor book is Stinnett's c2000 Day of Deceit. #88,008 This book is in every Barnes & Noble I've checked.
Second is Roberta Wohlstetter's classic 1962 analysis of US intelligence failures: Pearl Harbor Warning and Decision. #145,410 I've not seen this before.
Next is Walter Lord's classic 1957 account: Day of Infamy. #161,650 I've seen this in one or two stores.
Gordon Prange's 1981 analysis At Dawn We Slept comes in at #250,647. Most curious to me, since Prange is in every book store I've seen.
George Victor's Pearl Harbor Myth comes in at #273,060, also surprising, since it is in about half the stores.
Last is Clausen & Lee's Pearl Harbor Final Judgment at #896,696. I've never seen this in a store.

So I'll say it again: in terms of the public discussion of Pearl Harbor, Clausen & Lee's book is not a "major" work.

CougarGA7: " I have discussed this with LS both here and elsewhere.
My impression is that he does not place fault solely on Kimmel and Short.
Additionally, I would caution you that it is in very poor taste to discuss another Freeper without pinging them to the discussion that he or she is mentioned in."

The LS response on this thread is typical for him.
I take it to mean that he does not welcome an opportunity to defend his views.
What he wants to do instead -- being the good professor -- is hand out reading assignments and pop quizzes. ;-)
At no time has he indicated to me that anyone other than Kimmel and Short should share blame for America's failures at Pearl Harbor.

CougarGA7: "As I said before, Stinnett and Victor's books are in some bookstores just because they sensationalize the events of Pearl Harbor. This does not necessarily make them an accurate history."

Accurate or not, they along with Wohlstetter, Lord and Prange are the most "important" authors on the subject today.
Their writings form the basis of what people who've read something about Pearl Harbor know.

Therefore, in my opinion, for better or worse: those are the books we should be dealing with.

As described by Stinnett and Victor, my statement is precisely correct.

Then it shows again, how poor these books are as sources. At no time was General Marshall ever a client of Henry C. Clausen. In fact, Marshall had sent a request to Clausen after he had finish his investigation asking if he was interested in being his attorney for the upcoming Congressional hearings on Pearl Harbor. Clausen turned Marshall down. So, it is as I said. Your statement that Marshall was Clausen's client is false.

Your example using Bratton is a good example on how these two authors do not interpret the actual evidence out there and in fact only are trying to skew the facts to bolster their ridiculous claims. Bratton had ample opportunity to charge Clausen with forcing him to change his testimony. The fact that Clausen showed Bratton affidavits by those disputing his claim is not coercion at all. It is presenting evidence to someone so they can see that they've been caught in a lie. It's no different than when an investigator shows a suspect proof that the person was where he says he wasn't. This is a common practice. If Bratton felt that he had been forced to change his testimony, the Pearl Harbor Hearing would have been the place to do it. Instead he did the exact opposite.

First in explaining why his testimony was different between the Army Board and Clausen he says:

When Colonel Clausen interviewed me in Europe he invited my attention to a number of affidavits signed by General Gerow, General Bedell Smith, General Ralph Smith, General Gailey, and a number of other officers, to the effect that they did not receive these pouches from G-2 on the night of the 6th. As I stated to the committee last night, I know all of these officers; they are men of honor, and integrity, and if they say that they didn't receive the pouches from me, or Colonel Dusenbury, or one of my assistants, then my recollection must have been at fault and I so admit.

There is nothing inappropriate about showing these affidavits to Bratton. Clausen basically saying, "These guys told me that you didn't give them the documents. What do you have to say about that." If he really felt that he did complete that task, then he should have said it then. If he felt he was forced to change his testimony then he could have said that during the hearings instead of saying that if these men say I didn't deliver them then I must not have.

He also went on to say in reference to the affidavit that he gave to Clausen that he was not forced to change his testimony. He told Senator Keefe specifically, "I want to make it perfectly clear that no pressure was put on me...I was not coerced in any way whatsoever."

The theory that Clausen forced his interviewees to change their testimony is only based on the efforts by Sentor Ferguson to make that assertion. He never could get that off the ground and eventually dropped the effort totally. I've tried to tell you more than once that the Victor and Stinnett books are crap, but you just wont learn. It's fine by me, I can take apart their argument all day without much effort.

First of all, by my reckoning Clausen's book is not a "major" work, since it is sold in none of the book stores I've visited in the past year or so.

And this is why you will remain ignorant on the subject. If its not on your top sellers list then it must be false. I recommend you read Clausen's book. It is an interesting look at the process of the investigation itself. Maybe then you would be able to make more informed decisions. I also recommend that you actually read Prange's book. At the very least you need to start making an effort to expand your knowledge on this subject. You keep relying on two bad sources as your complete authority on the subject, and as long as you keep doing that I will simply keep making you look like a fool.

CougarGA7: "At no time was General Marshall ever a client of Henry C. Clausen."

In fact, Major Clausen's 1945 - '46 investigation was done at General Marshall's request, and Clausen was acting, in effect, as Marshall's defense lawyer.

Clausen's investigation -- by his own admissions -- was heavy-handed at the very least, "intimidating" and "coercive" would be more accurate descriptions.
And I have not even quoted the worst of it here. You can read that in either Victor or Clausen's own book.

And, of course -- all that would be entirely appropriate behavior if the subjects were bank robbers or murderers: then you do whatever you have to.
But these were senior US military officers, and did not deserve such treatment.

Further, at least two of those officers -- Col. Bratton and General Smith -- later recanted, privately, the affidavits Clausen forced them to sign.

And here, pal, is the bottom line: all of Clausen's efforts were intended to clear General Marshall of responsibility for the Pearl Harbor fiasco -- and they failed.
That Congressional investigation still placed the responsibility on Marshall -- where it surely belonged, though not solely with Marshall.

CougarGA7: "So, it is as I said. Your statement that Marshall was Clausen's client is false."

For all practical purposes, Marshall was Clausen's client.

CougarGA7: "Bratton had ample opportunity to charge Clausen with forcing him to change his testimony."

Ironically, one of those superiors was Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, who also later recanted his Clausen-inspired affidavit -- privately.
Smith went on to enjoy a highly distinguished career after the war, still in the service of General Marshall.

CougarGA7: "I've tried to tell you more than once that the Victor and Stinnett books are crap, but you just wont learn. It's fine by me, I can take apart their argument all day without much effort."

In fact, you've done nothing but act like a priest at mass, waving your hands around, saying not "Father, Son and Holy Ghost", but "Inaccurate, False and Crap."

But unlike the priest, your hands and words have no influence over the Truth. And you've presented no serious data to support any of your condemnations.

Your arguments here are ludicrous, ignoring key facts, and yet in every post you do a little victory dance, patting yourself on the back -- as if you had just scored a touchdown, when you're still dancing in your own end zone!

The simple fact, which every serious student of the subject must recognize, is that there was a massive cover-up, intended first and foremost to protect President Roosevelt, but also his chief military men, especially FDR's favorite: Marshall.
The evidence for this cover-up is all around -- huge volumes of critical Pearl Harbor files destroyed, others which even today have never been released.

The simple truth of the matter has been understood by many from the beginning: Washington knew the attack was coming, and failed to adequately warn Hawaii.

CougarGA7: "And this is why you will remain ignorant on the subject. If its not on your top sellers list then it must be false."

Now you are misrepresenting my view.
What I've explained several times is: our history is the history which we as a people understand about what happened in our past.
These understandings come from books which are being sold to the public every day, and those which sell the most have the greatest influence.
Regarding Pearl Harbor, that would be Robert Stinnett's c2000 Day of Deceit which the Amazon data suggests now outsells all the other books combined.

Therefore, Stinnett's book and the closely related one by George Victor, c2007 Pearl Harbor Myth deserve the closest and most serious attention.
They deserve better than your priest-like hand-waving.
They deserve actual attention to the details of their arguments and facts.

And that, despite constant hand-waving, neither you nor LS have ever provided -- not once, pal.

In fact, Major Clausen's 1945 - '46 investigation was done at General Marshall's request, and Clausen was acting, in effect, as Marshall's defense lawyer.

Nope. You are incorrect. Clausen was asked to to investigate at the request of Congress through public law 339. He was selected by Henry Stimson. Marshall is nowhere in this loop.

I have read both Clausen's and Victors work, I have also read the Clausen report and Clausen's testimony to the Pearl Harbor board. I see nothing that tells me that he stepped outside the bounds of what a judge advocate and investigator would and should do to gather evidence.

From what I can tell you have only read Victor, you have not read Clausen's book, or his testimony, or his report. But you are wedded to your pet author and have made the conscience decision to remain ignorant. That's your choice, but like I said, I can tear down Victor's argument with ease so you will do this at your own peril.

Further, at least two of those officers -- Col. Bratton and General Smith -- later recanted, privately, the affidavits Clausen forced them to sign.

Need a link or source that proves this. I have not seen anything to this sort. They were under no obligation to defend Clausen during the Pearl Harbor Hearing, but they did. So if they changed there mind about it later there must be some record of it. Otherwise it's just hearsay by your pet authors.

For all practical purposes, Marshall was Clausen's client.

I think I've shown you already that this is not the case. More than once. You need to put some actual evidence out there to that effect. Otherwise, you are only repeating a false statement hoping that if you say it enough it will become true.

Bratton was a senior career officer who genuinely liked and respected his superiors, and would not publicly cross them. He did, however, privately recant the affidavit that Clausen forced him to sign. Ironically, one of those superiors was Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, who also later recanted his Clausen-inspired affidavit -- privately.

Again. Put up the source. Where does this claim that they privately recanted come from. Put it up so I can look at it, otherwise this is just another attempt to prove a point by repeating the same false statement.

In fact, you've done nothing but act like a priest at mass, waving your hands around, saying not "Father, Son and Holy Ghost", but "Inaccurate, False and Crap."

Nonesense. You are just too ignorant to understand it. I've have posted examples for both your pet authors in which I showed that they misrepresented the facts that are out there, and taken source material and placed it out of context so it means something else. Right down to what source they used and how it was misused. You need to go look at your facts because once again you are making a false statement. Additionally, I have provided you with source material, suggested reading to you (3 books and 1 set of documents so far), and shown specifically documentation that support some of the arguments I have made.

You on the other hand just keep falling back on the same two tired sources and are making no effort to expand your understanding of all the information out there. Again, that's your choice. I have no vested interest in whether or not you are ignorant.

What I've explained several times is: our history is the history which we as a people understand about what happened in our past.

So you just accept it as truth then because it is the most popular. Therefore you will remain blissfully ignorant. That's OK by me, but for myself, I want more. That's why I expand my research every day.

And that, despite constant hand-waving, neither you nor LS have ever provided -- not once, pal.

Despite that this is your typical response when you are backed into a corner, it is again not true. I find it amusing when I give you examples of how your pet authors are wrong, you call it "hand-waving". Start putting up some real sources to back up your claims or I will just continue to embarrass you.

Also, I will again warn you that you should not discuss another Freeper without pinging them to the response as well. It is not polite or proper to talk about someone behind their back. It also leaves the impression with others that you may be an intellectual coward and I'd bet you don't want that.

CougarGA7: "Clausen was asked to to investigate at the request of Congress through public law 339. He was selected by Henry Stimson. Marshall is nowhere in this loop."

All told, there were nine major Pearl Harbor investigations, of which #4 (Hart), #5 (Army Board) and #6 (Navy Court of Inquiry) were particularly critical of Admiral Stark and General Marshall.
The Navy Court was so critical of Admiral Stark, that it's report, along with Admiral King's scalding endorsement lead to Stark's being relieved.

As a result, General Marshall went to his boss, Secretary of War Henry Stimson and offered to resign.
But instead, Stimson appointed Major Henry Clausen to do investigation #7, to defend Marshall and help restore his reputation.

So my point is valid: Major Clausen (appointed by Stimson) was acting as General Marshall's defense lawyer -- for all practical purposes, Marshall was Clausen's client.

CougarGA7: " I see nothing that tells me that he stepped outside the bounds of what a judge advocate and investigator would and should do to gather evidence."

Clausen himself described the intimidating tactics he used to force reluctant senior officers to change their testimonies so they better supported General Marshall's version of events. Words like "heavy handed" and "coercive" are certainly appropriate descriptions, even if "illegal" is not.

CougarGA7: "From what I can tell you have only read Victor, you have not read Clausen's book, or his testimony, or his report. But you are wedded to your pet author and have made the conscience decision to remain ignorant."

The three frequently re-read and highly marked-up books I have here are Prange, Stinnett and Victor.
According to Amazon numbers, the only other books which matter in the public discussion are Walter Lord's 1957 and Roberta Wohlstetter's 1962 classic "Introduction to Pearl Harbor" works.

Clausen and Lee (1992 Final Judgment) are minor players, in terms of how Americans understand Pearl Harbor events.
So is John Toland's 1982 book Infamy, though both Toland and Clausen are sources for later published works.

CougarGA7: "I can tear down Victor's argument with ease so you will do this at your own peril."

So you keep saying, over and over and over. But you've never actually done it, not once, pal.

CougarGA7: "Need a link or source that proves this. I have not seen anything to this sort."

Victor p75, his reference for Bratton's recantation is John Costello's 1996 book Days of Infamy page 207.
For Smith's self-contradiction and recantation he references Forest Pogue's 1966 George C. Marshall page 431, and PHA 35:91.

Stinnett p233 - 236 includes a lengthy description of Bratton attempting to interest Marshall on December 6 & early December 7 in warnings about a Japanese attack -- warnings which Marshall ignored.
This resulted in eventual censure of Marshall by an Army Board.

"Marshall quickly sought to counter the charge and, with the approval of Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, dispatched an Army major [Henry Clausen] on a 55,000 mile aerial journey throughout the European and Pacific war theaters to gather affidavits and testimony that contradicted Bratton's account...
"...But despite Clausen's efforts, Bratton never changed his original testimony. The Army Board's assignment of failure to General Marshall stood."

Stinnett's references here are PHPT 3, pg 1469 and PHPT 35 pg 90.

CougarGA7: "I think I've shown you already that this is not the case. More than once."

As is totally typical of CougarGA7, you have only claimed to, but never actually done it.

CougarGA7: "Again. Put up the source. Where does this claim that they privately recanted come from. Put it up so I can look at it, otherwise this is just another attempt to prove a point by repeating the same false statement."

Stinnett's wording on this is a bit different. He says that Bratton never actually changed his original testimony to the Army Board, and technically that's true.
Bratton's mia culpa words were:

"my memory must have been at fault"

Bratton changed not one word of his original testimony. Stinnett places no credence whatever in Bratton's official recantation.

CougarGA7: "Nonesense. You are just too ignorant to understand it. I've have posted examples for both your pet authors in which I showed that they misrepresented the facts that are out there, and taken source material and placed it out of context so it means something else."

Nonsense. Over and over and over again you claim to have done that, but in fact have not, ever.

CougarGA7: "I have... shown specifically documentation that support some of the arguments I have made."

Only those documents and arguments which are not controversial. The gist of your most important arguments is nothing more than hand-waving.

CougarGA7: "You on the other hand just keep falling back on the same two tired sources and are making no effort to expand your understanding of all the information out there."

Those are not the tired sources, they are the most important sources -- which make claims about Washington's advance knowledge and failure to warn -- on the book market today.

Those are the books which you must be dealing with, in detail, in specificity.
If you can't answer all those arguments, then you haven't done anything, you haven't contributed anything to the discussion except worthless hand-waving and mumbled-jumbled words, pal.

So far I've seen nothing from you, or anyone else, which contradicts in any way the basic findings of several investigations, and of the Stinnett and Victor books -- that Washington knew and failed to warn.

CougarGA7: "I find it amusing when I give you examples of how your pet authors are wrong, you call it "hand-waving"."

You've given no examples.

CougarGA7: "Also, I will again warn you that you should not discuss another Freeper without pinging them to the response as well."

Repeating what I said before: LS has indicated to me several times that he does not wish to defend his views here.

I'm going to start with this one.

Repeating what I said before: LS has indicated to me several times that he does not wish to defend his views here.

This is my final warning to you not to talk about other Freepers behind their back. If you are going to mention them, then add them to the "To" list. This really just shows your lack of integrity.

So my point is valid: Major Clausen (appointed by Stimson) was acting as General Marshall's defense lawyer -- for all practical purposes, Marshall was Clausen's client.

Why, because you said so? Clausen was appointed by Stimson, Stimson had more problems with the Army Board Hearing than just their condemnation of Marshall. You keep repeating it, but it doesn't change the fact that Clausen was not representing Marshall and Marshall was not his client. This is true no matter how many times you repeat it.

Clausen himself described the intimidating tactics he used to force reluctant senior officers to change their testimonies so they better supported General Marshall's version of events.

Since I have read Clausen's work and you have not I can say I'm more qualified to comment on this. Again, I will point out that there was nothing unusual with the process of the investigation. The subject of coercion was the attempt by Senator Keefe and Ferguson to discredit Clausen during the PHA. He not only broke down their argument to the point that they abandoned that tactic entirely, but others supported the validity of Clausen's method.

The three frequently re-read and highly marked-up books I have here are Prange, Stinnett and Victor.

This has nothing to do with the fact that you are trying to debate Clausen without having read anything but the opinion of Victor and Stinnett. You keep using which books are popular as an excuse to be and remain ignorant. That's a pretty weak argument. Like I've said before I've recommended many different readings to you as have others and you have made the choice to remain blissfully ignorant.

Victor p75, his reference for Bratton's recantation is John Costello's 1996 book Days of Infamy page 207. For Smith's self-contradiction and recantation he references Forest Pogue's 1966 George C. Marshall page 431, and PHA 35:91

I don't have Costello's or Pogue's book at the moment, but I will look into those references. If they did make these statements I want to know to who and when. Now, PHA 35:91 I do have.

This page is Smith's affidavit. In it he confirms that he did not receive the 13 (of 14) part message as Bratton had claimed at the Army Board hearings. Specifically, he states that he left the office at 7 pm (before completion of the receipt of the first 13 parts). If Bratton had delivered the pouch, it would have been given to the Night Duty Officer who at that point, if it was felt it was of vital importance, would have delivered it to Marshall (not Smith). Otherwise, it would be locked in Marshall's safe until which time he was in the office to read it.

There is no recanting on this page at all. So your boy Victor is twisting the facts again. This should not surprise you. As I said before I will look into the other references as well, but I'm on travel right now and it is not as easy for me to get resources.

So you keep saying, over and over and over. But you've never actually done it, not once, pal.

Nonsense. I just did it again. If Victor is saying that PHA 32:91 is Smith recanting, he is grossly incorrect...again. The problem is that you are too blind in your ignorance to get it. Victor's is the easy one to rip apart.

Stinnett's references are even worse. PHA 3:1469 is the Army Board conclusions and says absolutely nothing about approving the dispatch of Clausen to investigate further. In fact there is no mention on that page of Clausen, or continuation of the investigation at all. PHA 35:90 is just the conclusion of Betts affidavit and the beginning of Smith's. No mention of Marshall at all. So in other words, unless Stinnett means something else when he references PHPT (I'm assuming he's talking about the Pearl Harbor hearing that I call PHA) then his statement is completely false.

As is totally typical of CougarGA7, you have only claimed to, but never actually done it.

You need to go back and look. There are several examples showing flaws in their use of sources dating all the way back to May of 2010.

I will follow up on the rest of this in the evening. I've run out of time for the moment.

Ok. Moving forward.

Nonsense. Over and over and over again you claim to have done that, but in fact have not, ever.

Again, I have time and time again. This included going to the references source material itself and using it as my base for the argument. But typical BroJoeK is too ignorant to understand it. I find it amusing that you use this as the premise of your argument repeatedly. It shows how weak your case is.

Only those documents and arguments which are not controversial. The gist of your most important arguments is nothing more than hand-waving.

I have only presented you with real data. You prefer to call being confronted with real data "hand-waving". I have been and will continue to be willing to look into any real data you send me as well. It is only unfortunate that you do not do the same. It really has made this argument onesided in which I show you real data and you respond with the equivalent of "Well, Victor said!!! and but...but...Stinnett says." It seems that what you call "hand-waving" is still multiple times better than any argument you have ever presented.

Those are not the tired sources, they are the most important sources

This if funny. I bet your pet authors wouldn't even agree with you on this. The most important sources are the 40 separate documents and 10 million words that make up the different Pearl Harbor hearings. Personally, I use them frequently and have read almost all of it. It's OK, I'm getting used to you being wrong.

Those are the books which you must be dealing with, in detail, in specificity. If you can't answer all those arguments, then you haven't done anything, you haven't contributed anything to the discussion except worthless hand-waving and mumbled-jumbled words, pal.

I have, repeatedly. I have read them. I even have analyzed them. The real lack of adding to an argument falls on someone who decides this is the only source worth using and refuses to expand their knowledge.

You've given no examples.

I have given many. Far more than you ever have. You just have to take your blinders off.

That covers it. At this point I would say it's time for you to man up and start really taking this debate seriously. You should strive to increase your knowledge on the subject instead of repeating the same thing over and over in the hopes that it will become true. You say that "FDR knew, expected and indeed 'provoked' the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."

You need to come to grips with the fact that it is you that is making the accusation and it is you that must then prove that the accusation is true. Otherwise all your repetitive reiteration of the same unsubstantiated claims are, what would you say, "hand-waving".

CougarGA7: "This is my final warning to you not to talk about other Freepers behind their back. If you are going to mention them, then add them to the "To" list. This really just shows your lack of integrity."

I have never mentioned him except in response to your directed prodding, in each case of which you have included him.
So he has every opportunity to see what you are trying to do, and, if he's interested, my response.
Your behavior in this is most curious.

CougarGA7: "You keep repeating it, but it doesn't change the fact that Clausen was not representing Marshall and Marshall was not his client. This is true no matter how many times you repeat it."

Here is a fact you can chew on: CougarGA7 is now acting here as Henry Clausen's defense lawyer. In that respect, whether he appointed you or not, Clausen is your client and you are trying to represent him to us.
In that same sense, Clausen was General Marshall's representative.
Your claim that Clausen had other duties besides defending Marshall is irrelevant.
Marshall was the major figure criticized by the Army Board, similar criticism by the Navy Court resulted in Admiral Stark's relief, and Marshall himself had offered to Stimson to resign.

Clausen was Stimson's effort to defend everyone at the very highest levels of government, beginning with General Marshall.

CougarGA7: "Again, I will point out that there was nothing unusual with the process of the investigation.
The subject of coercion was the attempt by Senator Keefe and Ferguson to discredit Clausen during the PHA.
He not only broke down their argument to the point that they abandoned that tactic entirely, but others supported the validity of Clausen's method."

I'll repeat: Clausen himself describes the methods he used.
As quoted by Victor, I would call them "heavy handed" and even "coercive."
He did force officers to change their testimony against their will, and the wording for example of Bratton's new affidavit shows the strain of a man having to chose between his memory of the Truth and what he is now being forced to say.

"Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner by use of threats, rewards, or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force...."

CougarGA7: "This has nothing to do with the fact that you are trying to debate Clausen without having read anything but the opinion of Victor and Stinnett."

I am not trying to "debate" Clausen -- I dismiss Clausen out of hand, because Clausen is nothing more than Marshall's defense lawyer, a biased propagandist trying to protect Marshall and Marshall's superiors against the totally true charge that they knew the attack was coming and failed -- no refused -- to adequately warn commanders in Hawaii.

By the way, I've read enough about Clausen to know that he does actually blame some of the Washington brass for their incompetence.
I say, that's fine, that's good, that's a step in the right direction.

Clausen's problem is: he stops before he ever reaches the real source of "incompetence": President Roosevelt and FDR's top people.
Only Stinnett and Victor take that issue head-on.

And that's the issue we're discussing here.
The incompetences and failures of FDR's underlings are of no major concern to us today -- we expect such things, they happen in every organization, especially in times of stress.
So the important question is: what specific responsibility did President Roosevelt and his top people have in fostering their underlings' incompetence?

So far as I know, Clausen makes no effort to answer that.
Stinnett and Victor are the only major selling authors who do.

CougarGA7: "You keep using which books are popular as an excuse to be and remain ignorant. That's a pretty weak argument. Like I've said before I've recommended many different readings to you as have others and you have made the choice to remain blissfully ignorant."

I am uninterested in whom Clausen blames, because he is barking up the wrong tree entirely.
For purposes of this discussion, Clausen is a waste of time.

Clausen is also a distraction that you, CougarGA7, are using to change the subject, from what you don't want to talk about -- the responsibilities of FDR, Marshall, Stark, etc. -- to something you find more comfortable: i.e., did Colonel Bratton's memory somehow lie to him?

CougarGA7: "I don't have Costello's or Pogue's book at the moment, but I will look into those references.
If they did make these statements I want to know to who and when."

Nor do I have those references, but knowing the way CougarGA7 butchers every other "research" I've seen you do, I would most likely not accept your analysis, by itself, as necessarily valid.
You have an unlimited and highly unscholarly ability to shoot from the hip, wave your hands around and condemn what you obviously don't understand.

Just a bit of academic humility would do you a lot of good, academically.

CougarGA7: "There is no recanting on this page at all. So your boy Victor is twisting the facts again."

For example, in this statement. You obviously don't understand the references I listed, so without even thinking twice about it, you accuse Victor of "twisting the facts again".

That is very typical of CougarGA7, and most unbecoming of an alleged scholar.

CougarGA7: "Nonsense. I just did it again.
If Victor is saying that PHA 32:91 is Smith recanting, he is grossly incorrect...again.
The problem is that you are too blind in your ignorance to get it.
Victor's is the easy one to rip apart."

But you are not "ripping Victor apart", you are only making a fool of yourself by automatically condemning what you obviously don't understand.

So you need to eat just a bit of humble pie, once in a while, before you become so g*dd*mn arrogant you are completely insufferable.

CougarGA7: "So in other words, unless Stinnett means something else when he references PHPT (I'm assuming he's talking about the Pearl Harbor hearing that I call PHA) then his statement is completely false."

And why ever should CougarGA7 bother to research what Stinnett is talking about before dismissing his statement as "completely false"?

CougarGA7: "You need to go back and look. There are several examples showing flaws in their use of sources dating all the way back to May of 2010."

And I have agreed to none of them.
CougarGA7 has simply waved his hands, pronounced his words and walked away.

I find all of your arguments pretty insulting, but none of them compelling.

CougarGA7: "I have only presented you with real data."

The only serious, consistent argument you've made in all these posts is that Stinnett and Victor are "crap."

To defend that argument you have presented your analysis of their references.
In every case your analysis is totally silly, slip-shod and uncomprehending of the authors' intent.
As a result, you wave your hands around, call them "completely false" and walk away doing your little victory-dance while still in your own end-zone.

I am not impressed with your work.

CougarGA7: "It really has made this argument onesided in which I show you real data and you respond with the equivalent of "Well, Victor said!!! and but...but...Stinnett says." "

"Real data" is almost never disputed data.
No "real data" that you have presented (i.e., sworn testimony) is a matter of debate.

The important question is: what else do we know which shows how much President Roosevelt and his top people understood about the coming attack, and their response to it?

Answers to this question are necessarily not found in Clausen, or in the various official investigations -- all intended to focus blame on underlings instead of those at the very top.

So, for purposes of this discussion, "real data" on all those investigations are more-or-less irrelevant.
They don't tell us what we want to know.

CougarGA7: "The most important sources are the 40 separate documents and 10 million words that make up the different Pearl Harbor hearings."

All of which, by design, say: it was not FDR's fault.
To find a different perspective, you'll need to look elsewhere.

CougarGA7: "You say that "FDR knew, expected and indeed 'provoked' the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."
You need to come to grips with the fact that it is you that is making the accusation and it is you that must then prove that the accusation is true."

So you have been very busy changing the subject to reports of various investigations, including Clausen's.
Evidence for FDR's knowledge will not be found in any of them.
Nor is there any "smoking gun" proving that "FDR knew."
Had there been such a "smoking gun" this discussion would have been wrapped up by investigators and historians many decades ago.

Instead, there are bits and pieces of reports and documents left by eye-witnesses, that somehow escaped massive document destructions after the attacks.
These don't add up to a legal "smoking gun," but they are highly suggestive, and it's all we have.

To date, the best summaries of this data are to be found in Stinnett and Victor.
So far as I know, almost none of it is found in Clausen or in any official investigation.

That's what makes them irrelevant, imho.

I have never mentioned him except in response to your directed prodding, in each case of which you have included him.

I have specifically asked him not to waste his time with this. I don’t expect you to understand the validity of not talking about someone behind their back being your demonstrated lack of integrity. I am being very specific. If you mention another Freeper, you add him/her to the “to” of the message. It’s just a matter of respect for others. I don’t expect you to understand it.

Here is another example of your ignorance. I am not a representative of Clausen any more than Clausen was a representative of Marshall. All I have done is point out that you are making a false statement. Your response is to just make another false statement.

I'll repeat: Clausen himself describes the methods he used.

Yes, I have read it. You have not. Quoting Victor and repeating your claim will still not make it true. Nothing of what Clausen describes in his own account of the investigation is outside what any investigator could and should do.

I dismiss Clausen out of hand, because Clausen is nothing more than Marshall's defense lawyer,

Again, repeating a false statement will not make it true.

By the way, I've read enough about Clausen to know that he does actually blame some of the Washington brass for their incompetence.

And I don’t believe I have ever said anything otherwise. You need to start trying to keep up. If you can’t even keep track of what I have said, how is anyone supposed to take any value in claims that you make?

I am uninterested in whom Clausen blames, because he is barking up the wrong tree entirely. For purposes of this discussion, Clausen is a waste of time.

Which again shows your ignorance. If you were really interested in looking into the detail surrounding the Pearl Harbor attacks, a person who was assigned by Stimson under the order of Congress should be of great interest. You are only interested in what your pet authors want to say. You show time and again that you do not wish to expand your knowledge.

I will talk about any aspect of this subject. All I ever did was point out that you are intentionally leaving Clausen's book out of the list of works on the subject in the last 30 years. You have expanded this into a debate that his work does not count because he’s not on a top ten list on some book chart or not in your favorite bookstore. These are silly arguements and don't see things for what they are.

Nor do I have those references, but knowing the way CougarGA7 butchers every other "research" I've seen you do, I would most likely not accept your analysis, by itself, as necessarily valid.

There are many people far more qualified than you that support my research methods. I promise you it goes far beyond marrying myself to two conspiracy authors and accepting them as gospel.

But you are not "ripping Victor apart", you are only making a fool of yourself by automatically condemning what you obviously don't understand.

So by your estimation, pointing out that the page in the PHA attributed by Victor makes no reference to the claim he makes is condemning something I don’t understand? You have made it evident that you have not read the source. I have. Go read it and then come back and show me where it says on PHA 32:91 that General Smith recanted his claim that Bratton did not deliver the first 13 parts of the 14 part message. I’ve read it and don’t see it. Your turn.

And why ever should CougarGA7 bother to research what Stinnett is talking about before dismissing his statement as "completely false"?

This was an opportunity for you. I can’t say I’m surprised that you missed it. I am out of town. I don’t have my usual sources in front of me. From what I can tell, PHPT as referred to by Stinnett is the Pearl Harbor hearings. If it is, his statements are in fact completely false. If not this was your opportunity to say that PHPT was some other source. I’m really disappointed in you that you could not pick up on this opportunity to at least say something intelligent, but I admitt this would require you to be able to think on your own which I'm not convinced you can do. At the very least, if PHPT is referring to some other source then you should have been jumping up and down saying that I am looking at the wrong source. Either I am correct, or you don’t even have the fortitude to looking into the sources of your own pet authors.

And I have agreed to none of them.

Only showing how ignorant you are on the subject. Please realize that I do not care if you comprehend what is put in front of you. It is not my problem.

I find all of your arguments pretty insulting

Awwww. Poor baby.

The only serious, consistent argument you've made in all these posts is that Stinnett and Victor are "crap."

I have presented far more primary data than you have. You are only fixating because it runs against your pet authors. To defend that argument you have presented your analysis of their references which can be shown in most cases to be completely out of context.

No "real data" that you have presented (i.e., sworn testimony) is a matter of debate.

Enlighten me. What “sworn testimony” have I presented to this argument? Now really think about it. I’m not talking about this dispute with Clausen’s book that you are currently riding on. Take a look at my assessment of the situation and what my conclusions are and show me where I have used “sworn testimony” to come to these conclusions. Clausen’s book cannot apply to this since the conclusions I have posted were done before I read his book.

All of which, by design, say: it was not FDR's fault.

You need to take some time to read some of these investigations and their conclusions. Only through this will you realize how ridiculous you sound.

So you have been very busy changing the subject to reports of various investigations, including Clausen's.

All I did was point out that you conveniently left Clausen off your list of recent authors writing on the subject of Pearl Harbor. Authors you did list had books that fell on both sides of Clausen’s book. I point out that you are fixating on authors that support your claim, but then you say I’m detracting. Again, this is pretty weak.

That's what makes them irrelevant, imho.

And that is why you fail.

Let me repeat for you.

"FDR knew, expected and indeed 'provoked' the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."

Your words. Now prove it.

CougarGA7: "If you mention another Freeper, you add him/her to the “to” of the message. It’s just a matter of respect for others. I don’t expect you to understand it."

Post after post you've badgered me with this, and somehow you can't comprehend that out of respect for others I've left him off my address list. What is your problem?

CougarGA7: "I am not a representative of Clausen any more than Clausen was a representative of Marshall."

Post after post you defend Clausen's version of events, while calling the Stinnett and Victor interpretations "crap".
Affidavit after affidavit, Clausen defended Marshall's version of events, while trying to reduce previous testimony by, for example, Rufus Bratton, to "crap".

There are quotes from Clausen demonstrating that he specifically did not pursue responsibilities of Secretary Stimson -- nor did he go after any other higher-ups.

CougarGA7: "Nothing of what Clausen describes in his own account of the investigation is outside what any investigator could and should do."

But the fact remains that lawyer Clausen conducted a highly aggressive, sometimes intimidating or even coercive, but legal, defense of General Marshall and by extension, other higher Washington officials.

Clausen had no brief to, and did not pursue the question of higher-up responsibility for US failures at Pearl Harbor.
That's what makes Clausen irrelevant to this discussion.

CougarGA7: "Again, repeating a false statement will not make it true."

Clausen was, in effect, nothing more than Marshall's defense attorney.
In the end, he casts all of the blame on lower level underlings, and none on those at the top.
Doing that was patently ridiculous and false.

CougarGA7: "And I don’t believe I have ever said anything otherwise.
You need to start trying to keep up.
If you can’t even keep track of what I have said, how is anyone supposed to take any value in claims that you make?"

You've lost track of your own claims, pal.
You've never explained whom either Clausen or you believe was responsible -- and Clausen gives us a long list of specific names.
Do you agree with Clausen's names and priorities, or would you add names, or change the ordering?
If so, based on what?

My understanding of Clausen is that he blames a number of Washington underlings, some of whom he never interviewed, and in no case looks into responsibilities of those underlings' superiors.
That is not an acceptable investigation, imho.

CougarGA7: "If you were really interested in looking into the detail surrounding the Pearl Harbor attacks, a person who was assigned by Stimson under the order of Congress should be of great interest.
You are only interested in what your pet authors want to say.
You show time and again that you do not wish to expand your knowledge."

I very much wish to "expand my knowledge" about the actions and responsibilities of President Roosevelt and his top people.
None of the investigations you keep trumpeting here provide very much of that information.
So far as I know, only Stinnett and Victor really address those questions.

CougarGA7: "I will talk about any aspect of this subject.
All I ever did was point out that you are intentionally leaving Clausen's book out of the list of works on the subject in the last 30 years."

Clausen't book does not discuss the actions and responsibilities of Washington's top-most brass, nor is it a major factor in current public discussions.
Clausen is irrelevant to this discussion.

CougarGA7: "You have expanded this into a debate that his work does not count because he’s not on a top ten list on some book chart or not in your favorite bookstore.
These are silly arguments and don't see things for what they are."

I have not "debated" anything about Clausen, except to point out various reasons why he is irrelevant to this discussion.

CougarGA7: "There are many people far more qualified than you that support my research methods."

Then your academic advisers are frauds and charlatans, and you should fire them immediately -- no wonder American education is in such goshaweful shape!

Pal, regardless of what data I have provided here, you and you alone -- CougarGA7 -- have taken on the major and dire responsibility of naming both Robbert Stinnett and George Victor with labels like "crap" and "completely false."
So it is your academic responsibility, and no one else's, to prove the validity of your charges.
And not just to prove them to your satisfaction, pal, but to mine.
And that you have never done -- indeed, not even tried to do.

And you call yourself an academic?
You're not, pal, you're just talking like a political hack, not a scholar.
So if you have academic advisers who call that kind of work-product "acceptable" you need to fire them, right now!
Get rid of those b*st*rds, before they totally ruin your academic future. ;-)

CougarGA7: "So by your estimation, pointing out that the page in the PHA attributed by Victor makes no reference to the claim he makes is condemning something I don’t understand? "

The truth is, you have no real idea what Victor intended by his references, you don't even know for certain if I copied those numbers correctly.
And yet, without giving it a second thought, you accuse Victor of "twisting the facts" and claim to be "ripping Victor apart".
In fact, you've done nothing but embarrass yourself, and demonstrate your lack of aptitude as a serious scholar.

Why can't you be just a bit humble, and acknowledge what you don't know?
Indeed, if you weren't such a jerk about the whole thing, I'd suggest what you really need to do is call on both Stinnett and Victor (I don't know them, don't even know if they are still living, but if not, I'd guess that each has trusted friends).
Ask them about it. Find out what they say in defense of their own works. Then you can begin to get some idea of where the real strengths and weaknesses of the various arguments lie.

Finally, let me suggest here that historical data which is "common knowledge" is normally not referenced in books, and this may be the source of some of your confusion.
One author's "common knowledge" may not be so well known to someone else, and that might be your problem with some of Victor & Stinnett.

CougarGA7: ".....Either I am correct, or you don’t even have the fortitude to looking into the sources of your own pet authors."

I have provided you with some data. You have taken on the responsibility yourself of labeling Stinnett and Victor with words like "crap," "completely false," and "twisting the facts again".

So it is your responsibility, not mine, to prove your charges, and to my satisfaction, not just to yours.
If you can't do that, then you'll need to issue a "public" apology for talking out of your *ss, instead of out of your brain.

So, do you want to talk about "intellectual honesty", pal?
How much do you have?

;-)

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.