SOVIET REPORTS 30-MILE GAIN IN CENTER; KONOYE SEES JAPAN IN ‘GRAVEST’ CRISIS (9/4/41)

It’s good to hear from you. It’s been too long. Like you I’ve gotten real busy and unfortunately, it will probably hurt my contributions to the project some. I definitely won’t get another book review done until late December unless I decide to post my reaction paper to Yu Maochun’s “The Dragon’s War: Allied Operations and the Fate of China 1937-1945” which I will be writing next month for class. I’m also looking for primary source material on U.S. logistical efforts in moving the AEF to Europe in WWI as well as brushing up on my Thucydides and Herodicus. Good times.

I think that you have summed up Stennitt’s work better than I could have. In my opinion, his work is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty and my interactions with the man in trying to get some of his sources, I feel, confirm it.

I agree that the scholastic works are often better, even if dryer than the popular ones. Throughout my masters I never used Ambrose once, not even in papers I did on Eisenhower of which he is considered the official biographer. For me it was the accusations of plagiarism against him that kept me totally away from him. I think the the accusations stem from shortcuts he takes in trying to be a book factory. At any rate, I don’t want any of my work to be associated with any of his for that reason.

Don’t be a stranger my friend. I kept meaning to FReepmail you since I hadn’t heard from you in so long and just kept getting sidetracked which is no excuse really.

Clausen’s book is not a scholarly work (nor did I ever label it that), it is a first hand account. Clausen wrote this book to recount his personal history of his investigation into the Pearl Harbor attack and his conclusions based on his personal experiences. I recommend that you go back and read my review on Clausen’s book that was posted by Homer. You might find it easier to find if you look on the General Discussion thread Homer set up.

CougarGA7: "I recommend that you go back and read my review on Clausen’s book that was posted by Homer."

I read Clausen's book very carefully, and I believe he's a great lawyer, but not an impartial scholar.

So I'll ask you the same basic question I just asked henkster:

Recommend an impartial scholar who has published after Stinnett's 2001 "Day of Deceit", and who tells the full story accurately, while also answering the many issues raised by Stinnett and others.

In other words, after all these years the task is equally to define in no uncertain terms what is true, but also to explain exactly why other claims are false.

I do think I should send you my October reaction paper. It reads very much like a book review (if it is anything like my current writing on Ya’qūb Beg) and will be relevant to the time. Honestly, when classes end in December, I'm thinking of dedicating that time to writing the "Year in Review" article for New Year's Day since it will probably be one of the most important ones we do in this project and I really want it to be well structured.

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.