Indeed, I have at least one of his books at home, and agree with him on virtually every subject -- except Pearl Harbor. ;-)
Perhaps you've noticed that LS comes into these discussions when I address him, along with you and others, on some post of mine.
So I hugely respect LS's view -- just wish I could get him to listen to reason on Pearl Harbor.
So far, am having no luck, but we really haven't even begun to get into all the details of what happened and what was known.
CougarGA7: "Stinnett is not a scholar. He is not a historian. He is a man who wrote with an agenda and from my research into his book on Pearl Harbor, shaped the evidence he had to fit his agenda. Not a good resource."
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.
Of course, I'm most impressed with the fact that people like yourself and LS, instead of taking on Stinnett's arguments head-on, spend most of your efforts trying to impugn him, or me for daring to present Stinnett's data.
Indeed, you guys attack Prange, Victor and Toland in the same way.
So, which recent recognized authors on Pearl Harbor do you hold up as being the final authority and final words on the subject?
CougarGA7: "You say you pay scholars to give you information. This is somewhat of a silly statement on your part since first you imply that hacks like Stinnett and Victor are scholars, which they are not."
There is an overlap in the data presented by Prange, Stinnett and Victor.
Where they differ is in material that was simply not available in Prange's earlier work.
So, are we to consider all of the new data to be false, or falsely interpreted?
If so, that would seem to me to be a very important subject, to be addressed in the most scholarly way possible, in full context of explaining exactly what the real story was, as opposed to various myths which have been perpetrated over the decades.
If someone will recommend such a book, I'll be happy to buy and read it -- and present its arguments here.
But let me make another important and related point:
Anyone who has studied history at all -- certainly including CougarGA7 and LS -- must consider the question: just what, exactly, is history and who is an historian?
The answer, in a fundamental sense, is that our history is what we believe about our past, and about ourselves.
For example, the Bible is our history if we believe in it.
If we don't, then it is barely more than a bunch of fairy tales.
Indeed, fairy tales themselves were certainly considered true by some people at some times.
Point is: in a sense, our history is what we believe it is, and so the "battle" to win a correct understanding of history is as important as any in politics, religion or any number of other disciplines.
I'm certain that no one understands that better than LS, or, if I dare mention his name here, Glen Beck. It's what he preaches every day.
So what is our true history of Pearl Harbor?
If you inquire on Barnes & Noble's web site, you'll find hundreds of books listed.
But if you go into a typical Barnes & Noble store, you'll find there Prange, Stinnett, Victor, Toland and maybe someone else, maybe not.
What I'm trying to tell you is: those are the historians whose works on Pearl Harbor "matter" today -- because they are the ones telling us what our "real" history of that time was.
And all of them, to a greater or lesser degree, are historical "revisionists" -- meaning they don't accept the idea that all of the blame belongs on the shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and General Short.
So, if there is a book out there which tells the true story more completely and accurately, then I don't know about it, and it's not for sale in your typical book store.
Maybe somebody should write one? ;-)
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.