Pearl Harbor & Revisionism

Pearl Harbor

The bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 is an event that has intrigued many historians. An aura of mystery surrounds the motivation of the Japanese and any connection between the bombing and Roosevelt. Many different historians (and revisionists) have their own take as to the events of that day. George Morgenstern, Charles A. Beard, and Charles Tansill are three of the revisionists quoted approvingly by John McKechney in his article "The Pearl Harbor Controversy: A Debate Among Historians." McKechney uses these three revisionists to try to show that the events of that day did not take Roosevelt completely by surprise. In fact, according to McKechney, the President knowingly provoked the attacks against Pearl Harbor by the Japanese to pressure the United States to enter World War II. Philip H. Jacobsen counters these arguments by saying that the Japanese attacks were successful through Japanese radio deception during the attack and not by United States provocation. McKechney's article was written in 1963 and Jacobsen's article was written in 2003. The inconsistencies between these two articles can be explained as a function of the difference in time in which these articles were written. Silencing the Past, a book by Michel-Rolph Trouillot, explains why this difference in time yields a different view of history. Trouillot's insightful explanation involves the "legacy of the past" theory, a theory that implies that events in the present do not hold the same potency for future generations.

In his article, written in 1963, McKechney discusses the different theories as to why and how Pearl Harbor was attacked. He uses several primary sources in addition to the initial three revisionists. The first theory discussed the speculation that England "engineered" the Pearl Harbor bombings. McKechney focuses on the words of Winston Churchill to supply evidence for this theory. Churchill, in a speech to the House of Commons, says that England needs the military support of the United States "and thus make victory sure." After the US was attacked and joined the allies, Churchill made another speech in which he said that "this is what [he] has dreamed of, aimed at, and worked forÐ'..." This supposedly shows that England benefited from the attack of Pearl Harbor and therefore England was behind the attacks. McKechney wonders why "no one has yet accused England of engineering the Pearl Harbor debacle." This opinion is absurd because the United State's biggest ally would not intentionally draw us into war. McKechney's next theory debates whether or not Roosevelt instigated the bombings. McKechney uses several sources to try to prove this theory, not the least of which is President Roosevelt's Secretary of War. On November 25, 1941, the Secretary wrote in his diary that the president and his cabinet had discussed various ways to "maneuver" the Japanese "into the position of firing the first shot" without endangering the United States to a great extent. To accomplish this, Roosevelt froze Japan's assets in the US depriving Japan of oil, iron, and steel, basic necessities for war. McKechney argues that this action forced Japan to attack the US. The last theory McKechney promotes is that Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the planned bombings at Pearl Harbor and "criminally withheld" that information from not only the commanders in Hawaii but also the nation. He did this in order to be able to repeal the neutrality acts and thus join the allies in World War II. Supposedly a Japanese message was intercepted that said that an "east wind rain" was coming. The Japanese ambassador to the United States had informed the president that such a message meant the danger of imminent war. However, these warnings were buried by Washington and thousands of men and women lost their lives as a result.

Conversely to McKechney's claims, Jacobsen uses newly declassified US naval communications intelligence records to refute all of the general arguments McKechney makes. In his article "Who Deceived Whom?" from 2003 Jacobsen argues that "radio deception" enabled the Japanese to be so successful at the attacks on Pearl Harbor. According to Jacobsen, the previous theories expounded by McKechney have no basis. The Japanese simply had a well