by Matthew Adams

Created on: July 02, 2008   Last Updated: September 14, 2008

The bombing of Pearl Harbor on the 7 December 1941 was a day Roosevelt described as a 'Day of infamy'. Indeed, it is now remembered as such. However, historians have begun to differ on the matter, led by revisionist historians who claim that Roosevelt's government knew exactly what was to come prior to 7 December, but needed it to join the war.

These revisionist historians challenge the official Robert's Commission, which investigated the whole attack and point to failings in intelligence and the warning systems, which ensured that America were unaware of the planned Japanese air-raid heading for Pearl Harbor. This commission, set up during the war, is largely claimed by revisionists such as Sinnet to be biased.

For Sinnet's book, Day of Deceit, is probably one of the best attempts at challenging those historians who claim that Roosevelt's government was indeed unaware of the exact details of the attack. While the Roosevelt government was indeed resigned to the fact that war with Japan was a very realistic possibility, in the light of continued deterioration in relations; where, when and how a Japanese strike would take place was not clear to them.

Not so according to Sinnet, who has studied a wealth of documentary evidence on Pearl Harbor released by the Freedom of Information Act. Sinnet argues that the new evidence at hand not only proves that Japanese codes relating to the Pearl Harbor air-strike had been deciphered and delivered to the US government, that they were actually subsequently ignored by it.

Four key US aircraft carriers were also out of port. Not just a co-incidence or luck but moved out to save them, and leave the rest of a dispensable Pacific fleet in harbor, according to the revisionists.

Revisionists are also strongly suspicious of how defenseless Pearl Harbor was left. Again, this is put down to military and intelligence incompetence. However, the revisionists see this as something deeper. Like for example, planes in Pearl Harbor being placed in such a position as to make their take off most difficult.

At any rate, while there is no doubt that evidence has come to light that does challenge certain aspects of the Robert's Commission (in relation to Kimmel and Short for example), how conclusively it relates to Sinnet's theory is debatable.

For example, how necessary it was for a full-scale air strike of that magnitude to have been allowed as a pretext for war is debatable. Any sort of Japanese bomb dropped on Pearl Harbor would have been enough.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>