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

[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