Obituary: John Toland, 91, Author of Best-Selling History Books, Dies

New York Times ^ | January 7, 2004 | CHRISTOPHER LEHMANN-HAUPT

[OESY]

John Toland, a best-selling historian whose book "The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945" won the 1971 Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction, died on Sunday at Danbury Hospital in Connecticut. He was 91 and lived in Danbury.

The cause was pneumonia, said his daughter Tamiko Toland.

Reviewing "The Rising Sun" (Random House) for The New York Times, Walter Clemons called it a "big, absorbing and finally very moving history of the Pacific war, told primarily from the Japanese viewpoint."

In research for his books, Mr. Toland typically sought to do as many interviews as possible, sometimes hundreds. For "Rising Sun" his subjects ranged from Japanese generals and admirals to housewives who had survived the nuclear attack on Hiroshima. This technique served him well in perhaps the most popular of his histories, "Adolf Hitler" (Doubleday, 1976), an anecdotal portrait that several reviewers called the most comprehensive biography of Hitler up until that time.

He entered a long-running historical debate about the Roosevelt administration's culpability at the start of the Pacific war with " "Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath" (Doubleday, 1982). In a shift from his conclusions in "The Rising Sun, " Mr. Toland said he had turned up evidence to conclude that Roosevelt had known in advance of Japan's impending attack but failed to inform the naval command in the Pacific in the hope of rousing America from its isolationism. This view put him at odds with a series of official federal investigations and historians who said Roosevelt may have made errors in judgment but neither knew about nor encouraged the attack.

John Willard Toland was born June 29, 1912, in La Crosse, Wis. He attended Phillips Exeter Academy and Williams College, getting his B.A. in 1936, and set out to become a playwright, attending the Yale University School of Drama in 1936-37. From 1942 to 1949, he served as a captain in Special Services in the Army Air Force, stationed in the United States. During the war, he married Dorothy Peaslack, a dancer. They had two children, Diana Netzer, of Basalt, Colo., and Marcia Toland, who lives in Oman. The marriage ended in divorce.

In 1960, while doing research in Japan, he married Toshiko Matsumura. She and their daughter, Tamiko, of Ithaca, N.Y., also survive him, as do three grandchildren.

By the mid-1950's, he had written many plays, novels and short stories, but remained unpublished. Encouraged by a friend, he turned to nonfiction and began to sell articles to magazines. His agent got him a contract to write a book on dirigibles, "Ships in the Sky" (1957), and he followed with a dozen books for adults and young people, specializing in World War II. A memoir, "Captured by History," was published in 1997.

[jamaksin]

All of which leads to Stinnett's text, the paperback edition, in its Afterword section - which obviously you are au fait with.

Oh, the last sentence of same is "We knew." ... and we did.

As Toland, and Beard before him, as well as Flynn and Barnes, ... , etc. have led in pointing out those oddities ...

So it goes ... do read a bit more and do stay curious - perhaps not.

[tcuoohjohn]

I have..

You seem to have some difficulty distinguishing between possibility (1 + infinity-1) and probablity ( 50%+1)

All the irrelevancies in the world do nothing to further your assertion. If you believe that the total weight of the tomes or the volume of strident voice furthers your assertion then you will be sorely disappointed.

All the theories, inferences, speculations, mean nothing if they only result in further theories, speculations, and inferences. It merely becomes a grand tautology.

Is is possible that FDR knew. Yes. There is nothing in the record that excludes the possibility. Is it probable that FDR that The Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor?..No. There is nothing in the record that would indicate that probability. There is a mountain of strained inference, goofy speculation, and grossly misinterpretated data that has been debunked by cryptanalysts.

Now the diffrence between possibility and probability is the difference between looking at Mount Everest and climbing Mount Everest. Any one who says they have climbed mount Everest by looking at it is intellectually dishonest.

The key to the Pearl Harbor issue is the earnest desire to understand the events as they happened not as you want to see them. Anything else is merely a variant of the well know phenomenom of the Texas Sharpshooter Effect.

ONe day perhaps some one will fine definitive evidence of Roosevelt's prior knowledge of the attack at Pearl Harbor. I know that as of this date that hasn't happened. Stinnet's book has been roundly and deservedly bashed by intelligence professionals as the kind of shoddy and intellectually dishonest interpretation of data that results form either incredible sloppiness or willful fraud. ( Intelligence professionals believe it is the later)

I can have some sympathy for Toland in that his error was understandable and explainable.

Stinnett?...can't say as much for him. To many glaring inconsistencies between the actual record and Stinnetts tortured prose. To make that many errors of fact and interpretation would appear to me to fall well beyond the level of accident and coincidence.

[jamaksin]

Um ... probability as in Bayesian analysis, or "fuzzy logic" as in yes/no/maybe or even better Borel sets. Maybe the simplier "confidence interval" from ANOVA is your plateau - perhaps not, however.

Are those to same "intelligence professionals" from the firm of Martin and Mitchell? More than a tad of the patina is gone there ...

Stinnett's prose might be a bit tighter - agreed. But, then this is so-called "popular history" and he did name names (viz., radio operators), show documents for the first time (e.g., TESTM reports), ... point to the wealth of documents still in US Navy hands and beyond FOIA rules, ... and those lead in only one direction. As Costello, Hoehling, ... also lead in that direction.

Now, on that "peer review" side ... your impression of Wilford's thesis is? Award winning thesis, you know. His article in the Northern Mariner also won an award ... yes, a refereed journal ... my, my.

The only "strident" voices I hear/see are those in the form of a bi-polar disorder.

Consider means of resoution here - just two instances for example:

A. Phil has in his latest missive (See December 2003 issue of Naval History) several uses of "probably" as in frequency ... well, why not open that still classified file and see the raw message - communication headers, at. el., You'd think Phil would actively advocate this approach - well, actually no, he would very likley not.

B. Stinnett shows SRN 116643 - aka the "famous" Tanpan Bay/Hittokapu Wan message - that is located at 45.0 N,147.66E (to help you find it). He shows two variants on pages 50-51, these are each annotated " ... spelled out, not from single code group." Agreed so far- perhaps not?

This particular message is vouchsafed by Duane Whitlock as not having it spelt out; LS and others point to this as a Stinnett fax paux ... (So, if in a given code book there is no nameplace for your location ... what do you do ... I'll give you a hint - See Hinsley and Stripp "Code Breakers - The Inside Story of Bletchley Park" - page 275.)

Now why not release that raw intercept with its communications informations ...

So simple, just two instances - yet no joy ... Why is that? So many oddities ... easliy resolved ... so why not after sixty plus years ... ?

On FDR ... has documentation ever been found that Hitler attended or knew or signed off on the Wannsee Conference? Are you expecting that? Perhaps the same with FDR - perhaps not. Or, for that matter, where was Marshall the night of December 6/7, 1941?

Again, you were saying ... what, exactly?

[Perhaps to stress the point - the US government would never have admitted to the contraband on the SS LUSITANIA until it had to (and the very essence of her as an example) ... Pearl Harbor will likely be the very same ... intelligence professionals nothwithstanding.]

Oh, yes, you were saying ... ?

[tcuoohjohn]

Let us try to be reasonable men. Since were are both interested in this subject lets try an experiement.

Give me your best explanation of FDR knew and the supporting evidence behind that assertion. Please try to avoid irrelevancies like the Lusitania, Liberty et al.In sum a clear , concise, and compelling argument supported by evidence. Avoid should haves, must haves, would haves, and could haves. Deal only in evidence. Avoid the weight of tome argument (eg there have been 19 books " proving" FDR knew etc..all this proves is 19 books have been written) Avoid the fallacy of reference arguments ( eg "Prove that FDR didn't know." I made no assertion. You are making the assertion therefore it is your assertion to prove. Proving the nonexistence of some thing is a classical fallacy) Please try to avoid what I call the OOOOoooWWwwwEeeeeOOOOo Method, in which thin tenuous connections are made between equally nebulous data in a general spirit of 'conspiracy'thinking.

Best of luck..

I will respond to your precis with close attention provided it is a clear, logical, and unambiguous analysis.

[jamaksin]

At law, generally in your first year criminal law course, are given some wonderful examples of "evidence" - perhaps you know them.

=====================

In a nutshell, one such example is rendered as:

Did you see Bubba bite off Tubba's ear?

No, your Honor, I did not.

Well, then, how can you say that Bubba did indeed bite off Tubba's ear, if as you stipulate, you did not see him do it? Please explain?

Your Honor, I saw Bubba spit it out ...

[Often another example is used - the "dropped" item - say a piece of chalk ..., but you may get the point.] Oh, the point ... like mathematical induction, evidentiary proof is permitted via indirect means. I can "prove" someone is dead without having to produce the body - another example. Kinda' like using a thermocouple to determine the termperature of a blast furnace ... it is done indirectly.

========================

For, FDR ... and from many more that 19 texts ... nearly 200+ was my last count on the topic of Pearl Harbor ...

A. "This means war!" ... with Harry "The Hop" Hopkins present, and while Commander-in-Chief ... no ALERT is given.

B. Stark ... " ... everything I did was ordered." Stark had one superior. [You might see Gannon's text from a letter from Kimmel to Stark which was not ever sent.]

C. Marshall ... where was he the night of December 6/7, 1941 ... and why did he say his loyalty was to FDR suppassed that to the US Constitution?

D. Joseph Leib's 1984 article ... " ... What the media Won't Tell You ..." - or who knew and when.

A whole lot of spitting a'goin on ... Conan Doyle would be proud.

And let's do not neglect all those identified but still classified materials ... recall even that letter from Sappho to Kramer points to a cover-up ... and these were in situ intelligence officers ... It is a shame we cannot ask their opinion of Stinnett or Wilford ... so it goes

Do I expect a document signed by FDR with a notary seal ... nope - to direct.

So, again you were saying ...

[Taliesan]

Good luck. The inability to distinguish possibility from probability is the genetic marker of the tinfoil fraternity. It is incurable. They look normal to each other. They should be encouraged to talk and marry among themselves.

[tcuoohjohn]

alas,

I gave you your opportunity and you failed to take it. This is a serious subject for serious people.

Perhaps I will , one day, find someone among the " FDR Knew" contingent who will give a calm dispassionate presentation of their evidence as they see it. Once again That day has not arrived. It is unfortunate. I would have enjoyed it.

[tcuoohjohn]

Nice phrase " Tin Foil Fraternity". Kinda sums it up. I had some hopes for jamaskin based upon his interest in the subject. Unfortunately, I have found once again he is more interested in the agenda, than he is the subject.

[Taliesan]

Actually, if you'll watch carefully, here is the actual pathological process:

They are unable to jettison the mental residue from pondering Possibility 1 before they turn their minds to Possibility 2. That means the possiblities have a CUMULATIVE EFFECT in their minds, so that a subjective PROBABILITY THRESHOLD is soon reached, and they interpret a dozen possibles (improbabilities) as a cumulative probability.

They can't seem to grasp that most observations are independent of each other, i.e. one possibility doesn't make the second possiblity any more likely.

Zero times 12 equals zero, not 12.

[tcuoohjohn]

It is a fascinating process to watch in a sort perverse way. The most common rationale/equation is the number of times an assertion is made is a clear indication of the validity of the assertion. A corollary equation is the volume in which the assertion is made is further evidence of its validity. Another is the notion of the sum total of irrelevancies you can pile on to the assertion augments the assertion.

Oddly...Jamaksin uses the same excreable tactics that OJ Simpson's lawyers used bamboozle the jury.

I particulalry like your observation that nutballs transmute the sum of possibilites into probabiity. Candidly, I don't think jamaksin would find any fault in that logic.

[jamaksin]

Alas .. in this corner also.

So it goes ... They endure.

[jamaksin]

What means "tinfoil" in this thread's usage, please?

[tcuoohjohn]

It is a reference to tin foil helmets. There is a phenomenon among very whacky conspiracy theorists that also leads them to believe that the government or aliens are sending " gamma" or other rays into their heads to prevent them from discovering " the real truth". The prevention measure is a cleverly crafted tin foil helmet to deflect the incoming rays.

There you have it...

[jamaksin]

Thank you.

I made the connection with a "tin can" and "tin foil" as the earlier term for aluminum wrapping "foil."

Geometry must factor in there somewhere - particularly with "gamma" rays.

Thank you again.

[tcuoohjohn]

addendum...For some of the whacky jacks the tin foil helmet is not a deflector of evil rays but a reciever that allows them to talk to God ( among the religiously inclined) or to talk with the Borgons from Planet Beta-Lurgan 4 ( for those more cosmically oriented). The reciever types of tin foil helmets are more complex with resistors, coins, and bits of wire or pop tops hanging from them to better enable the Whacky Jack to tune in to the proper frequency.

[tcuoohjohn]

You're Stinnett aren't you?

[VOA]

bump

[jamaksin]

Thanks for the addedum:

I'll fire up the old Hammarlund (real radios glow in the dark) and do an aperiodic scan for those frequencies. Of course, my R/S EK01 is my favorite from that era, but unfortunately now it needs some focused attention.

Thanks again.

[jamaksin]

No.

[tcuoohjohn]

You are talking with the proud owner (and now wholly defunct) BC-610C. Even in my youth it was a dinosaur in 1966 and now it is positively Mesozoic. There comes a time when the FCC decides that bad notes are no longer tolerable and sends you nastygrams by the bushel barrel. The price of quaint AM nostalgia got too damn high. So it sits..awaiting the intrepid soul who has the desire and ability to bring the old sparker back to life and let it work its drifting and bad note magic and reinvigorate the FCC enforcement folks. Hell...I'll throw in a 2kw linear amplifier ( also defunct) for that intrepid soul.

Best,

Formerly WB4IRV (SSB is for wimps)