First I find it curious that you mention Stinnet, Victor, and Toland, but fail to mention Clausin/Lee. His was written after Toland and I'm currently finishing it up now. I find it is very well written by one of the men who actually was an investigator into the attacks. Lee is an editor who also edited Prange's book as well as Layton's. I recommend this book if you want to get some perspective. I will be writing a review on it as well which you will be able to read.
The question I have though is this, which Freeper has said that it was "all Kimmel and Short's fault"? I have not seen a Freeper make this claim and would be willing to debate with them on the subject if that's what they think.
Ha! Well, now that you put it that way, I guess it is "by design," but then the question becomes, by whose design?
Well, not entirely by mine, except that I do make a point whenever possible to pick up with my daily newspaper reading where ever I left off -- before having been so rudely interrupted by, shall we say, necessities of life. ;-)
But I do make a point to add your name on most posts which I think might interest you.
I'll take your comments here to imply you'd like me to be more consistent in that.
CougarGA7: "First I find it curious that you mention Stinnet, Victor, and Toland, but fail to mention Clausin/Lee."
Henry Clausen and Bruce Lee are favorites of poster LS, who recommended them to me several threads back.
Major Clausen's vigorous, if not heavy-handed investigative work as defense council for General Marshall is discussed by Prange, Stinnett and Victor.
Prange's account is very complimentary towards Major Clausen.
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.
So the validity of Clausen's views rests on whether those officers were lying before their encounter with Clausen, or after he got them to change their testimonies.
My opinion is that Major Clausen did whatever he believed was necessary to defend his client, General Marshall.
Finally, I should mention that Clausen & Lee's book is not to be found in any of the book stores I've checked out, so I'd consider them not to be a major factor in the current public discussion over Pearl Harbor.
CougarGA7: "The question I have though is this, which Freeper has said that it was "all Kimmel and Short's fault"?
I have not seen a Freeper make this claim and would be willing to debate with them on the subject if that's what they think."
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.
He has never given me any indication otherwise.