Ickes, had been given additional responsibility as petroleum coordinator for national defense. One of these activists, Secretary of the Interior Harold L. ![]() ![]() Over a period of months, he had resisted the tempting advice of several members of his cabinet who had urged him to adopt stringent measures. In the Pacific, however, the President was prepared to be conciliatory. Roosevelt was forceful enough in the Atlantic to cause some observers to think that Hitler might take up the challenge in circumstances favorable to his own malevolent designs. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines propelled the United States into war. The Supreme Command in Tokyo had various goals in mind, not the least of which was a preemptive strike designed to capture the resources that abounded in Southeast Asia-resources and territory that might fall into the hands of Japan's competitive ally, Germany, if Hitler succeeded in conquering his enemies in Europe. The problem in 1941 was not that Roosevelt was relentlessly pushing Japan's leaders toward the brink the problem was that he could not find a viable way to stop them from taking the plunge of their own accord. They are determined to spread the notion that Roosevelt goaded the Japanese government into attacking the United States at Pearl Harbor, thus making it possible for him to enter the European conflict through the "back door of the Far East." They therefore attribute Tokyo's decision for war to the allegedly arbitrary policies sanctioned by the President, especially the freezing of Japan's assets in July 1941 and the proposal for a settlement that Secretary of State Cordell Hull presented to the Japanese government in November.Īrchival research does not support these contentions. What is disturbing about the Pearl Harbor revisionists, however, is their tendency to disregard the rules of scholarship and to gloss over the complexities of the historical record. This form of debate is one of the most important mechanisms by which historians eventually arrive at tenable conclusions. Honestly held differences of opinion can easily arise out of conflicting interpretations of what happened in the past, even when everyone accepts the same set of facts. Normally this is done only when incontrovertible evidence is at hand-evidence so unassailable that the historical community can embrace the reinterpretation with confidence. As new material comes to light, previously accepted explanations must be revised. There is nothing wrong with updating earlier interpretations or with correcting erroneous judgments. Instead of carefully mapping their way through the records of the period, they hacked out a trail of Machiavellian conspiracy that twisted and turned and switched back on itself until it eventually led to the White House. They ignored the historical background that is needed for an understanding of what happened in 1941. These detractors paid little attention to Japanese military intrusions in East Asia in the decade prior to Japan's attack on the United States. Roosevelt of having misled the public in regard to the coming of the war in the Pacific. In these circumstances, perhaps it was inevitable that certain critics of the President would emerge as "Pearl Harbor revisionists," eager to accuse Franklin D. There were no easy answers, no quickly forged consensus. How could it have happened? Who was to blame? What could be done to guard against surprise attacks in the future? People could scarcely believe the reports pouring out of their radios. As the news flashed from coast to coast, the bombing of Pearl Harbor mushroomed into a national disaster. (National Archives at San Francisco ARC 296007)ĭecember 7, 1941, began as a typical Sunday for millions of Americans, but suddenly everything changed, irrevocably, in ways they would remember for the rest of their lives. The USS Oglala lies capsized after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |