Revisionist history

[Brian]

Well, guys, I have just received an ordered copy of PREMPTIVE STRIKE and will certainly read it with an open mind. I don't really understand how one can criticise a book or an author's attempt to put forward another theory, if one doesn't make the effort to read it in the first instant.

It seems to me that there are too many armchair critics/so-called experts who should get up off their butts (to use an Americanism), do some original research (which, I might add, does not come cheap and is invariably not profitable even when published - I can assure you of that fact after having 20+ books published), and not wait around to criticise the next author who 'dares' put his head above the ramparts. Sorry if I have hurt anyone's feelings but, to me, in my humble opinion, armchair critics remind me of WWI generals in many ways!! I stand to be shot down in flames!!

Have a nice day

Brian

[Ruy Horta]

Although I do believe there is some truth in written history being a reflection of modern society (or at least its judgement and conclusions), you can find further support for an early entry and escalation of the Chino-Japanese conflict in Daniel Ford's fine Flying Tigers book (published by Smithsonian in 1991 - already 15 years ago!).

IMHO the parallel between Chinese and later South-East Asian conflict is pretty evident, US crews and a/c would have bombed Japan if the war hadn't escalated beforehand. The AVG was only the start.

US policy of containing Japan could only have lead to some kind of direct war as it progessed. I don't think it is really revisionist to accept that line of thought. The only matter of real disagreement would be a clear casus belli, as in getting the support of the American public.

[RodM]

Hi Brian & Ruy,

as I mentioned in my post, I would reserve judgement because I haven't read the book. However, I stand by my original statement which is not a criticism of the author or his research; rather the publisher. Read the name of the book carefully (my emphasis by underlining the word):

"Preemptive Strike – The Secret Plan That Would Have Prevented the Attack on Pearl HarborPreemptive Strike – The Secret Plan That Would Have Prevented the Attack on Pearl Harbor"

Cheers from a WWI General (who also has spent over GBP3,000 on original archival documents in the last year)

[Brian]

Hi General RodM

I hope you spent some of that money on my books! Next time you're in London let me know and perhaps we can have a drink.

Brian (former Air Cadet - cashiered!)

PS: One thought that immediately comes to mind is that if there had been a plan for a pre-emptive strike against any Japanese aggression, then surely appropriate forces would have been made available to the area including Hudsons and B-17s and sufficient numbers of fighters. Pearl Harbour defences would also have been strengthened as would its defending air force. Perhaps the deterrant would have worked.

B

[RodM]

Hi Brian,

thanks for your offer; unfortunately after the documents, I don't have much dosh left for an air ticket!

I'm certainly not knowledgeable in this area but my first thoughts on the plan would be the possible difficulties selling to the American public (if done on a large scale) and of resupply with such long lines of communication. Then, of course, there is the possible reaction by the Japanese to such a move. I don't know what the author would have to say about this. That is where the "would" in the book title catches my eye - it seems possible to play out a number of senarios but I at least have always thought that a Japanese pre-emptive strike against the US Pacific fleet was central to Japanese plans once the embargoes were in place. It would be interesting to know the parallel developments of Yamamoto's plan and the origins of the concept.

The Executive Summary of the book on the website has a passage:

"The Joint Board Plan, which called for bombing raids on Japanese interests beginning the first of November, 1941, could have smashed Japanese troop transport ships destined for invasions of Malaya."

Yes, that was a possibility but being the born skeptic, my mind dwells on Fortress Singapore, the British confidence in dealing with the Scharnthorst and Gneisenau channel dash and Operations Bottenplat and Gisela...the best laid plans of mice and men.

Anyway, from the extracts on the promotional site, the book looks like a tremendous and thorough piece of research and I hope that you may post a review at some stage once you have read it...

Cheers

Rod