Warren Thomas' historiography concerning Pearl Harbor is mixed up. He substitutes the "conservative" interpretation for the "liberal" interpretation.
Thomas asserts that the conservative (orthodox) interpretation of our involvement in World War II is the interpretation which claims that FDR not only knew in advance but goaded the Japanese into attacking us at Pearl Harbor to get us into the war. However, Mel Olson's assessment that Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack by the Japanese upon the United States has been, and still is, the conservative (orthodox) view.
Although the revisionist interpretation has gained much support in the last few decades, it is still considered the liberal (unorthodox) interpretation for obvious reasons. Mainly, the liberal interpretation rests on a conspiracy theory. If true, a conspiracy had to be perpetrated by FDR and other administration officials. If FDR promoted a policy to aggravate the Japanese into attacking us at Pearl Harbor, then others in the administration had to knowingly participate, too. Namely, Secretary of War Henry Stimson and Secretary of State Cordell Hull had to implicitly channel and withhold information from army and naval commanders. In addition, top military officials had to be complicit in the scheme.
To believe that FDR followed a calculated plan to get the United States into the war is to assume he knew how the events would turn out. Did FDR just happen to know that our aircraft carriers were not in port at Pearl Harbor, so the Japanese would maim but not destroy our entire Pacific Fleet? And, did FDR know that the Japanese Admiral Chuichi Nagumo would not send in a third wave of high-level bombers to destroy whatever airfields, fuel installations and drydocks were left unblemished?
We learned after Sept. 11, 2001, that having intelligence information and knowing that the information you have is conclusive and should be acted upon are two entirely different things.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mr. Thomas' claim that the American Historical Guild reviews American history textbooks is wrong also. The American Historical Guild does not critique American history textbooks. It is, in fact, an organization that trades and sells historical memorabilia and has nothing to do whatsoever with reviewing history textbooks.
Stephen T. Morgan, Mitchell
