HITLER THREATENS FIERCE U-BOAT WAR; MATSUOKA ASKS ‘OCEANIA’ FOR JAPAN (2/25/41)

I'm not certain if any of that makes Stinnett's arguments totally invalid. The real truth is, Stinnett did serious research, uncovering much previously unknown data, and arrived at very reasonable conclusions, based on his understanding of that data.

Stinnett's work itself is what makes it invalid. It if full of contextually incorrect assumptions designed only to fit his pet theory. The only book on Pearl Harbor that is worse, is Victor's.

So, are we to consider all of the new data to be false, or falsely interpreted?

There you go again. Another ridiculous statement. I examined Stinnett's work objectively and found that it was full of mistakes and apparently intentional misinturpetations. This does not make it reflective of "all new data".

must consider the question: just what, exactly, is history and who is an historian?

There is a name for that you know. It is called Historiography. I have studied it extensively and am very well versed in it. In fact it was my training in historiography which allowed me to quickly pick up the bias in Stinnett's work as well as his misuse of source material.

You need to take a little time and figure out how to distinguish between a scholarlly and popular history. Victor and Stinnett's work are popular histories, meaning they are designed more to be interesting to read than to be of any scholarlly merit. This is not to say that they are completely worthless, but from an academic standpoint you would be better off looking at the Pearl Harbor Hearings than using any of Stinnet's biased and contextually inaccurate work. And that's what I recommend you read as well if you want to get a better feel for the events as they unfolded. In all it is around 10,000 pages of material and is quite interesting.

LS: "I have never denied that we broke Japanese naval codes. You want to hide behind the fact that Jacobsen and other real scholars (not Stinnett) publish most of their work in articles, which are all available on line."

Seems to me there should be a huge customer demand for an absolutely honest and accurate book on Pearl Harbor, one which addresses all the myths, issues and questions with facts and reason -- and showing a bit more scholarly respect than simply saying: Oh that Author "X", he was such a fricken idiot we have to ignore him.

The fact is, on Pearl Harbor there are several "Authors X" and their books are selling every day.
So, whatever falsehoods they contain can only be effectively countered by better explanations of the truth.

LS: "What the cryptanalists will tell you is that you don't just "intercept" something like you see on TV then run to the commander and say, "oh, Admiral, they're coming." "

No kidding, as a result of previous discussions going back many months ago, I've read up considerably on this subject, but don't claim to be in any sense an expert.

What I do understand is that at best code-breaking was difficult and time consuming, requiring many steps to produce an actual message translated into English for our top-brass to read.
Often, the best they could do was figure out the source and general subject of a message.
Sometimes all they could do was estimate the direction and distance of a coded radio transmission.

So no author says that code-breaking was easy, especially the more complex Japanese Naval Codes.

The question is whether, regarding the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was done at all, and did any messages suggest that those Japanese carriers, which had disappeared from "sight" were actually headed towards Hawaii?

Prange never says they did, although there is an interesting discussion (page 459 in the paperback) about Commander Rocheford's success decrypting diplomatic messages in the week before 12/7, which logically suggests he might have.

LS: "And, yes, Stinett badly "tangled up" the codes and decrypts.
I wrote a review of his book in Continuity; Jacobsen has written several article-length reviews.
Not ONE of his "is" statements has a matching note---the only statements he supports with citations are the "could be/should be/could have/would have." "

I've said all along, there is no legal "proof" -- no "smoking gun" -- that "Roosevelt knew and let it happen."
Had there been such proof, the debate would have ended many decades ago.

But there is a lot of evidence suggesting what "could be" or "could have" happened, of which Stinnett produces some.
I'd say Stinnett draws reasonable conclusions from that data, but if someone can use it to make a different case, why not write a book about it?

LS: "Now, I don't care if it's Homer Simpson or you, whoever relies on Prange for certain information is going to get bad information...."

Again, here's what you need to keep in mind:
Prange's book At Dawn We Slept is copyright 1981.
Toland's book Infamy is copyright 1982.
Stinnett's book Day of Deceit is copyright 2000.
Victor's book The Pearl Harbor Myth is copyright 2007.

My question is: what more recent book explains all the events, addresses all the issues and answers all those questions in a scholarly and reasonably respectful way -- dealing with actual facts as opposed to unbridled character assassination?

CougarGA7: "Victor and Stinnett's work are popular histories, meaning they are designed more to be interesting to read than to be of any scholarlly merit.
This is not to say that they are completely worthless, but from an academic standpoint you would be better off looking at the Pearl Harbor Hearings..."

Here's what I assume: any good scholar, who spends years or even a lifetime researching this subject will eventually have those hearings, plus all the other data, including every matter of important dispute, cataloged and virtually memorized -- such that it's organized in his head long before being finalized in book form.

That scholar will then select out just the data which really matters to answer the questions and tell the real truth about what happened -- as best we can know it.
And, a real scholar does not shrink from either side of the argument, but lays it out honestly, and then shows where it is right and where wrong.

So here's the bottom line: in the end the question that matters to most people is: who was more to blame -- the commanders in Hawaii or the brass in Washington?

To answer that, the original investigations said it was nearly all the fault of commanders in Hawaii.
Thirty five years later, Prange, in my view, puts it around half and half.
Twenty years after Prange, Stinnett and other more recent authors shift most of the blame onto Washington brass, including especially the Commander in Chief, President Roosevelt.

So, I've said this before, will keep on saying it: the trend in popular history books is away from blaming Hawaii and towards Washington.
To change that trend, somebody will have to write a detailed book saying: whoa, hold on, wait a minute, it ain't necessarily so.

Of course, in my view "popular history" is the only history worth much more than a bucket of spit, because it's the only history that tells us, as a people, who we are, and how we got here.
By itself, academic history has no great value, until it escapes the academy in the form of popular history.

Or, to put it another way: popular history is the battlefield where the war for hearts & minds is won or loss.
All the rest is of only academic interest.

Of course, in my view "popular history" is the only history worth much more than a bucket of spit, because it's the only history that tells us, as a people, who we are, and how we got here.

This really shows your ignorance on the subject. There are plenty of scholarly works that get bought everyday. They are also very good works of history and very interesting. Stennitt is just not one of them.

I have a full bookshelf of books by both popular and scholarly authors and I didn't go anyplace special to get them. For the second time now I have recommended reading to you after you have asked for it and for the second time you have brushed it aside. This tells me that you are really not interested in getting smarter on the subject or were just lying when you said you wanted more information. So along with the credibility issues you have I'm beginning to wonder if you have an integrity problem as well.

I ran one Google search on Phil Jacobsen and got this:

http://intellit.muskingum.edu/alpha_folder/J_folder/jacobsen_p.html

It lists a bunch his articles, which you can then find, download the notes, and do the damn research yourself. You seem to think that plucking a book off Amazon makes it an authority. Well, Cougar and I have tried to explain to you how SCHOLARSHIP works and you have a tin ear.

What are the author's credentials? Does the author have experience in cryptanalysis? Was the person in the War Department? If not, is the person a historian? (Stinnett is NOT. He's a former Navy radio guy. I don't have a clue who some of these others are. Their names never surface in the historical scholarship about PH, so that should tell you something.) Prange is to Pearl Harbor what Bruce Catton was to the Civil War---good in his time, thorough, but long eclipsed by more recent evidence.

Now, as we all have tried to tell you, you do "scholarship" by not just throwing out citations, but getting into the endnotes, and finding out if a citation that says it deals with "x" actually deals with "x" and was written on the day it claims to be, and so on. Stinnett's junk does not do this. He cites things that don't actually support what he says.

Of course, if you had read my review on Continuity, the reference which I supplied you, you would know that. Instead, you go to the discount pile at the bookstore to find yet another hack writing another book on Pearl Harbor without the slightest semblance of scholarship.

I'm done. Enjoy your ignorance.

"For the second time now I have recommended reading to you after you have asked for it and for the second time you have brushed it aside.
This tells me that you are really not interested in getting smarter on the subject or were just lying when you said you wanted more information."

First, I'll say it again: what I'm looking for is a recent book which tells the whole story, while addressing every issue, question, myth or lie that has been raised by other authors over the many years since 12/7/1941.

Now, you might be interested to learn that if you buy one of those new "Nook" or "Kindle" devices, you can download every single word of Pearl Harbor testimony, all 10,000 pages as you say -- for free.
So anyone who's truly interested, can happily spend weeks and months reading every excuse known to mankind about why our guys got caught, literally, with their pants down on 12/7/1941.

But why do that?
Why duplicate the efforts of many scholars and experts who've spent untold years studying every jot and tittle of it, who can quote large sections of it from memory, and, most important have made highly informed judgments on who was telling the truth, who was obfuscating and deflecting, and when and why they did it.

For every question and answer, there were issues, disputes and conflicting facts that can color, or texture, our understandings of what was said.
But you'll never understand those issues just by picking it up and reading.
You have to know it better than that.

And that's just what scholars are for -- it's why we have scholars.
So I say, let the scholars do their work, and I'll pay to see what they come up with.

All I ask is that they be totally honest, and at least half-way respectful of others they disagree with.

In short: "Author X is a fricken idiot" is just not an acceptable scholarly response to ideas you may disagree with.

LS: "It lists a bunch his articles, which you can then find, download the notes, and do the damn research yourself."

I'll say it again: I have neither time, qualifications nor enough interest to do serious scholarly research of my own.
But I'll be happy to pay the price of a book to someone who truly knows their stuff and can honestly answer the questions about what happened at Pearl Harbor.

LS: "What are the author's credentials?
Does the author have experience in cryptanalysis?
Was the person in the War Department?
If not, is the person a historian? (Stinnett is NOT..."

I'll say it again: I'm looking for a recent book by a qualified scholar which tells the whole story while reasonably addressing all of the issues, questions, claims or lies, by various actors and authors since 12/7/1941.

So far, no one has named such a book or author.

;-)

So anyone who's truly interested, can happily spend weeks and months reading every excuse known to mankind about why our guys got caught, literally, with their pants down on 12/7/1941.
But why do that?
If you wish to get smarter you do things like that. If you wish to just have it handed to you, then you do so at your own peril. You will be subjected to the biased of the author you chose. You have chosen poorly.
In short: "Author X is a fricken idiot" is just not an acceptable scholarly response to ideas you may disagree with.

And I have shown examples on how Stinnett and Victor are flawed in their process so once again you misrepresent me. I disagree with them because they have misused and in some cases abused their source material to twist meaning into what they wish it to be. I don't feel that I need to re-post the examples every time you make a statement. I will have to require you to go back and find them yourself. You really do just want your hand held for this, and I'm just not going to do it. You will have to do some of this work yourself.

CougarGA7: "You will have to do some of this work yourself."

Indeed.

Here is a partial listing of some of the general warnings -- not specific warnings -- of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, received before June 1941.

These general warnings should have sensitized and alerted all of the US chain of command to search carefully for any specific data on Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbor Time-Line

General Warnings of Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor:

Quoting the Army's Pearl Harbor Board: "We must...conclude that the responsible authorities...all expected an attack on Pearl Harbor...{but} when testifying after the Pearl Harbor attack, they did not expect it."
From the Joint Congressional Committee Report on Pearl Harbor Attack (JCC PHA also known as PHPT, for Pearl Harbor Part), vol 39 page 77.
US intelligence worker: "For thirty-two years...Japanese naval strategy...envisaged [a naval] showdown with the Americans...
For more than three decades the Japanese fleet trained and exercised for such an engagement...[specifically] an attack on the American fleet in Hawaiian waters at the outset of hostilities."
JCC PHA volume 4, pages 1962-63.
1932, US Fleet Commander, Admiral Frank Schofield: "The Enemy [Japan] will strike where the fleet is concentrated.
The enemy will use carriers as the basis of this striking force.
The enemy may make raids on Hawaiian Islands."
From Ladislas Farago, Broken Seal c1967, page 127
1932 US war games "Japanese" carriers approached Oahu from the north, undetected, and "Japanese" planes attacked on a Sunday, achieving total surprise, destroying every battleship in the harbor and all US planes before they could take off.
Victor page 33, quoting several sources including JCC PHA vol 2 pgs 821-22 and 866-67
1938 War Department study: "there can be little doubt that the Hawaiian Islands will be the initial scene of action" by surprise attack.
From Forrest Pogue George C. Marshall, c1966 page 172
January 27, 1941: US Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew reported:
"My Peruvian colleague told a member of my staff that he had heard from many sources including a Japanese source that the Japanese military forces planned in the event of trouble with the United States, to attempt a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor using all of their military facilities.
He added that although the project seemed fantastic the fact that he had heard it from many sources prompted him to pass the information. Grew."
JCC PHA vol 14 pg 1042.
Early 1941, as reported by Representative Martin Dies, chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities:
"Committee came into possession of a strategic map which gave clear proof of the intentions of the Japanese to make an assault on Pearl Harbor.
The strategic map was prepared by the Japanese Imperial Military Intelligence Department...
I telephoned Secretary of State Cordell Hull and told him... he directed me not to let anyone know... and stated that he would call me as soon as he talked to President Roosevelt.
In about an hour he telephoned to say that he had talked to Roosevelt and they agreed that it would be very serious if any information concerning this map reached the news services...
I told him it was a grave responsibility to withhold such vital information from the public.
The Secretary assured me that he and Roosevelt considered it essential to national defense."
From Martin Dies Assassination in American Opinion April 1964.
Early 1941, Korean agent Haan Kilsoo told US Colonel George Patton of a Japanese plan to attack Hawaii.
From Toland Infamy p260-61
March 1941, Korean agent Haan Kilsoo sent a memo to Secretary of State Hull that Japan would attack Hawaii and other US territories.
From Toland Infamy p260-61
1941 there were three separate US war games in which "Japan" attacked the fleet in Hawaii.
JCC PHA vol 5 pg 2136, also John Potter Yamamoto c1967 pgs 69-70
1941 General Sherman Miles, Army Intelligence G-2:
"Now an air attack on Pearl Harbor or any other attack on Pearl Harbor had been...a source of study for twenty years in Hawaii and in the War Department [Washington].
It is not mentioned in this estimate of the situation because it was so obvious...
That Hawaii could be attacked if Japan went to war was obvious to everyone."
JCC PHA vol 34 pg 57
Admiral Richard Turner, chief of the navy's War Plans Division, testified that he himself, the Navy Department, and CNO Admiral Stark did expect an attack on Pearl Harbor.
Sources beginning with JCC PHA vol 4 pg 1986, vol 5 pg 2213, vol 9 pg 4235 & others
Colonel Rufus Bratton of G-2:
"In various G-2 estimates submitted to the Chief of Staff [General Marshall] over a period of many months an attack on Hawaii had always been listed."
JCC PHA vol 34 pg 18.
June 1941, US Major Warren Clear was sent to the Far East seeking intelligence about Japan's war plans.
He visited British intelligence in Singapore and reported Japanese plans to attack Hawaii, Guam and other US islands.
In 1967 he wrote: "my evidence will show that Washington, DC had solid evidence prior to P.H. [Pearl Harbor] that Japan would...[attack] Hawaii."
Quoted from Toland Infamy page 261.
June 1941, US military attache' in Mexico City reported that Japan was building midget "submarines for attacking the American fleet in Pearl Harbor"
JCC PHA vol 31 pg 3217

My response is on the March 3rd thread where you also posted this.