CLICK TO SUPPORT
PEARL HARBOR ATTACKED


Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

1 members are viewing this topic
>Guest

 

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Infamy - john toland, Seeking commentary< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
Tracy White Search for posts by this member.

Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 772
Joined: Aug. 2001

Member Rating: 5
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 11 2002,10:44  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I'm working on a FAQ with info on as many of the books about the attack as I can manage with both plusses and minuses, and as such I'm reading the books.

I'm currently reading through John Toland's "Infamy" and is it just me, or is he sole definition of infamy "what happened to Kimmel and Short"? Granted I'm only about halfway through but at this point I fail to see how the subtitle "Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath" is accurate as he seems soley interested in proving that Kimmel and Short were scapegoats.

I still haven't built up a good database in my mind of facts, so forgive me if I forget a point or misremember something, but I also have a couple of problems with facts he states. For example, in my copy, on page nine he states that the 13 part message was delivered to Roosevelt on the night of December 6th. Twelve parts were, the 13th was not decrypted and translated until the next morning.

On page 60 he seems to imply that the Army at Fort Shafter was reading messages sent in purple, although he does clear it up somewhat in the same paragraph.

I didn't like how his first mention of the Hart inquiry was stating that Kimmel was having second thoughts about it. If hes trying to describe an inquiry I think he should have mentioned how it was started and what it hoped to accomplish.

Thoughts?

--------------
Let's see what this does...

Tracy White
http://www.ResearcherAtLarge.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 2
Philip Payton Search for posts by this member.

1



Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: Jun. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 18 2003,7:45 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

hiya,

i've just finished the book.  I did post in ask the historians querying about the amount of intel the americans apparently had prior to the attack and think that as was pointed out to me he was more interested in blaming FDR and claiming some big conspiracy, the summing up at the end completely contradicted some of the things he raises in the hearings such as Schultz testimony about delivering the message.  there seems to be some fairly large inconcistencies in his writing.  I've just started on Pearl Harbor : Attacked see if that throws any different light on the matter

--------------
Philip Payton, Nottingham, UK.....        "Strangers are only friends you haven't met yet"
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Tracy White Search for posts by this member.

Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 772
Joined: Aug. 2001

Member Rating: 5
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 18 2003,11:39 Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

Hey Philip, you may also do a search on google for Seaman Z.
Toland spent some time on Seaman Z, who was actually Robert Ogg.

WinstonChurchill.org Pearl Harbor Myths

Book Reviews also mentions Ogg.

--------------
Let's see what this does...

Tracy White
http://www.ResearcherAtLarge.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
2 replies since Nov. 11 2002,10:44 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


 
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Infamy - john toland
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code




Spring into Action Banner