Revisionist history

[rldunn]

Here is a book that takes an interesting look at Allied planning prior to Pearl Harbor

www.preemptivestrikethebook.com/2html

The same events are summarized in the second section of this article

www.warbirdforum.com/elusive.htm

Rick

[RodM]

History, it can be said, reflects the attitudes and beliefs of society at the time it is written. The whole theory of avoiding Pearl Habor with a pre-emptive strike seems to me to simply be another attempted justication for current world events.

However, I would ultimately reserve judgement because I haven't read the book (nor am I likely to). However the changed title of the book seems to suggest that it concerns little with actual history; more with creating book sales (18th-19th century science anyone? Reach the conclusion first and then formulate a hypothesis to fit...)

[Jim Oxley]

Indeed revisionist history. That the Plan may have existed is quite possible, but could it have been implemented? No.

American opinion would not have countenanced it. The military leadership was against it and most importantly the B-17 aircraft force did not exist at that time to provide a knock out blow that Armstrong bases his premise on.

[rldunn]

Gents

When I was asked to help with this book I had exactly the same opinions that you have expressed. However, when I opened my mind and actually did some research I came to the conclusion that American bombers (Hudsons not B-17s) and crews could have gotten to China. Even if they didn't attack Japan they would have been available to attack Japanese convoys heading "south" in December 41. The Allies well knew of the convoys that eventually landed troops in Malaya and the P.I. They wanted Japan to launch the first strike (if it was going to happen) and a covert bomber force not identified with the US/UK would have been the perfect solution. I won't try to convince you but if you are not open minded enough to read the book, at least take a look at the article. Was the Japanese attack on P.H. really "unprovoked" as Pres. Roosevelt said in his declaration of war? Surely you have some modicum of openess to new ideas. If WW2 history must always remain "known" and static, why have forums like this? Must we merely regurgetate previously published info and take "received history" as truth?

If yiu won't read the book, might you at least spend ten minutes on the article (free on the internet)? The sources for both book and artgicle are impeccable but if you want the 500+ footnotes you will need to buy the book.

Rick

[Jim Oxley]

I read the article Rick. It's not a case of disbelieving the premise - if you read my post again you will see that I said that it's quite possible for the 'Plan' to have existed.

The premise of the book is a 'what if'. And that's not history, however the author may want to try and wrap it up.

[RodM]

Hi Rick,

while not disputing the plan, as Jim points out, what follows is a big "If". There would be no guarrantee, even if a force of Hudsons or otherwise was available, that they would've been effective. How much training would US crews have needed just to navigate effectively in an area that they weren't familar with (the RAF and then the USAAF found this problem over Europe and it took some time to sort out)? What sort of Japanese defences would such aircraft had encountered? My first thought is that while such a force may've inflicted some losses, it probably wouldn't have changed the initial outcome of the Japanese campaign and, like other Allied air units at that time, faced annihilation....

Cheers

Rod