StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The great master of apologist history, Mitsuo Fuchida is the creator of famous Pacific War myths such as "The Third Wave" that was supposed to hit Pearl Harbor's fuel and logistical depots. A wave that, every other source from IJN veterans flat out deny. He is also the creator of the pervasive "Midway Miracle", the belief that Midway was a battle that favored the Japanese completely and that the Americans won by being a plucky band of heroes against insurmountable odds.

He even claimed he was present at the signing of the surrender aboard USS Missouri! Literally not a single person in the IJN or USN saw him or had any recollection of him there!

So who else do we know who's created myths like these? Name the author, the myth he's created, and how it affects retelling of history today. This topic should serve as a pretty good list of historical sources who have been discredited.

CaptHawkeye wrote: So who else do we know who's created myths like these? Name the author, the myth he's created, and how it affects retelling of history today. This topic should serve as a pretty good list of historical sources who have been discredited.

Lloyd George is a good example. He had a feud with Field Marshal Haig and constantly blackened Haig's reputation. A lot of the "lions led by donkeys" mythology of WW1 is the direct outgrowth of Lloyd George's campaign. It's only now that a new generation of historians are looking at the actual historical record and beginning to realize what the commanders of the BEF really managed to achieve.

I thought they interviewed pilots who were involved on the attack on Pearl Harbor and they stated themselves that they knew EXACTLY where American fuel depots were on the island, but their goal was American warships? You'd think that it would be pretty transparant a lie to tell, particularly since the goal of sinking American warships in harbor was an entirely legitimate move on the Japanese' part that I don't think anyone argues about. After all, people tend to get rankled over the fact that the attack happened at all and whether or not the Japanese had OFFICIALLY officially declared war when the attack occured, not their choice of target for that attack.

Stuart wrote:Lloyd George is a good example. He had a feud with Field Marshal Haig and constantly blackened Haig's reputation. A lot of the "lions led by donkeys" mythology of WW1 is the direct outgrowth of Lloyd George's campaign. It's only now that a new generation of historians are looking at the actual historical record and beginning to realize what the commanders of the BEF really managed to achieve.

Something of a derail, but I'd certainly appreciate a rough outline of what is meant here.

Gil Hamilton wrote:I thought they interviewed pilots who were involved on the attack on Pearl Harbor and they stated themselves that they knew EXACTLY where American fuel depots were on the island, but their goal was American warships? You'd think that it would be pretty transparant a lie to tell, particularly since the goal of sinking American warships in harbor was an entirely legitimate move on the Japanese' part that I don't think anyone argues about. After all, people tend to get rankled over the fact that the attack happened at all and whether or not the Japanese had OFFICIALLY officially declared war when the attack occured, not their choice of target for that attack.

No one cared when the Isreali's smacked down the Arabs on the first day without a declaration of war. It's so typical of the west to whine and bitch when they didn't get their precious declaration of war but oh it's ok when *they* do it.

Preliminary briefings had given the Japanese very detailed accounts of what Pearl Harbor had and who was there. The thing was, Japan was not interested in crippling the logistical assets of the USN, they wanted to attack the Navy itself. The IJN is ultra-Mahanian. It was more important to neutralize the enemy's combat units than what supported them. Since after all, the Japanese were expecting a short war, a long one they wouldn't be able to survive so destroying the drydocks and oil depots was largely pointless.

Fuchida however, likes to argue that it was "BIG OLD ME who thought up the attack on the oil yards and that SILLY NAGUMO wouldn't listen to my DESPERATE PLEAS to attack the yards." Even though no one in the IJN recalled him pushing or even mentioning the Third Wave to Nagumo.

CaptHawkeye wrote:

Gil Hamilton wrote:I thought they interviewed pilots who were involved on the attack on Pearl Harbor and they stated themselves that they knew EXACTLY where American fuel depots were on the island, but their goal was American warships? You'd think that it would be pretty transparant a lie to tell, particularly since the goal of sinking American warships in harbor was an entirely legitimate move on the Japanese' part that I don't think anyone argues about. After all, people tend to get rankled over the fact that the attack happened at all and whether or not the Japanese had OFFICIALLY officially declared war when the attack occured, not their choice of target for that attack.

No one cared when the Isreali's smacked down the Arabs on the first day without a declaration of war. It's so typical of the west to whine and bitch when they didn't get their precious declaration of war but oh it's ok when *they* do it.

I always though it was funny that on a History channel special about Pearl Harbor, while other American veterans were bitching or crying about that, recently deceased vet Johnny Finn was all like: "that's what your supposed to do in war, get there firstest with the mostest, and don't let the other guy know your coming!" That was really a breath of fresh air to hear.

CaptHawkeye wrote:He is also the creator of the pervasive "Midway Miracle", the belief that Midway was a battle that favored the Japanese completely and that the Americans won by being a plucky band of heroes against insurmountable odds.

I made the mistake in a High School research paper on the Battle of Midway, of concluding that the USN victory was largely a matter of luck.

Which did not go over at all well with the teacher, who as it turned out had served aboard USS Hornet.

Whoops.

The amount of lies and out right fabrications that William Archibald Dunning made about the Reconstruction and the Civil War simply boggle the mind.

CaptHawkeye wrote:The great master of apologist history, Mitsuo Fuchida is the creator of famous Pacific War myths...

The thing is; Fuchida was helped by the fact that very few people in the US actually knew Japanese; making Japanese primary sources and later secondary sources such as war memoirs or the official Japanese history of WWII -- Senshi Sosho -- offlimits to english-speaking Historians.

It was only recently with the rise of modern historians who were multi-lingual that a lot of the Japanese records could be looked over and used.

CaptHawkeye wrote:No one cared when the Isreali's smacked down the Arabs on the first day without a declaration of war. It's so typical of the west to whine and bitch when they didn't get their precious declaration of war but oh it's ok when *they* do it.

Out of curiousity, how do you declare war on countries that don't recognize you diplomatically? Further, did anyone complain in '73?

Yeah, another problem was the fact that he was among one of the first guys to even publish an account of Midway. His background in the IJN gave him a very tough foundation to attack. Because he was among one of the first guys to pull the "WELL I WAS A SOLDIER" cop-out. Using that to claim that his word on anything and everything about the war was gospel as so many people on the internet do today.

He also had the benefit of publishing his accounts during a time when most people hadn't the foggiest fucking clue how war worked.

TC Pilot wrote:Out of curiousity, how do you declare war on countries that don't recognize you diplomatically? Further, did anyone complain in '73?

The issue is more one of social attitude than political procedure to me. Westerners always label the attack on Pearl Harbor as a "dastardly sneak attack", but see no problem with Israel's pre-emptive strike during the Six Day War. Of course their was plenty of complaining to be had again when the Arabs attacked Israel on Yom Kippur, a Jewish holiday.

CaptHawkeye wrote:The issue is more one of social attitude than political procedure to me.

I don't doubt that quite a few people wouldn't even have been aware of the fact that Israel wasn't recognized by the countries it attacked, or are being hypocritical, but that doesn't really answer my question: how could Israel have declared war? I don't know, and want to know, because my thought (backed up by a decidedly weak grasp of diplomatic particulars) is that they couldn't have, even if they had wanted to.

Westerners always label the attack on Pearl Harbor as a "dastardly sneak attack", but see no problem with Israel's pre-emptive strike during the Six Day War. Of course their was plenty of complaining to be had again when the Arabs attacked Israel on Yom Kippur, a Jewish holiday.

Well, besides what I said above, we might also consider that Japan was still negotiating with Washington, even after the attack, a point which Roosevelt took great pains to point out.

To be honest i'm not sure how the diplomatic particularly would work. Like I said, i'm more concerned with the attitude of the west towards Japanese and then conversely the Israelis.

You're right about the Japanese Embassies attempts to warn the government about a war anyway. Which makes it all the more painful when veterans of the battle claim the attack was a "dastardly sneak attack".

CaptHawkeye wrote:To be honest i'm not sure how the diplomatic particularly would work. Like I said, i'm more concerned with the attitude of the west towards Japanese and then conversely the Israelis.

Well, that's sorta important, don't you think? If nonrecognition doesn't necesitate declarations of war, the example doesn't really work.

You're right about the Japanese Embassies attempts to warn the government about a war anyway.

Uh... actually, I meant the exact opposite. To Roosevelt, at least, one of the main reasons for it being a "dastardly attack" was the fact the Japanese were still conducting negotiations while planning the operation. Or, as he put it one way, "It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace."

In fact, so far as "attempts to warn the government" go, here's what they had to say a few hours after the attack: "The Japanese Government regrets to have to notify hereby the American Government that in view of the attitude of the American Government it cannot but consider that it is impossible to reach an agreement through further negotiations."

Or, as Roosevelt put it, "Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack."

Which makes it all the more painful when veterans of the battle claim the attack was a "dastardly sneak attack".

It was a sneak attack, and unless these same veterans are turning around and patting Israel on the back for doing the same thing, I don't see any reason to your point. You don't think they have a good reason for being pissed off?

A classic example would be the German generals, Manstein more than anyone else, who in their memoirs effectively blamed Hitler for everything the Wehrmacht did wrong during WW2. That stuff was taken seriously even by many professional historians for some time, although the German records were always more easily accessible to non-German historians and therefore Manstein's apology did not have quite as long legs as Fuchida's.

I also have a reverse question: can anyone name the originators of the still widely believed myth that the Italian army did so poorly in WW2 mainly because of poor morale and training? This myth tends to completely ignore the obsolescent equipment and poor logistical conditions of the Italians in North Africa. It's like an Italian version of the "Surrender Monkey" myth concerning the French, although with the difference that the latter was never believed by anyone with more than skin deep knowledge of history.

Perhaps one of the greatest historical myths in the United States is that of Columbus sailing to prove the Earth was round, invented, or so Wikipedia says, by Washington Irving. I don't know if it's still taught in schools today, but I know it was when I was there. Another major historical myth in the U.S. has to do with Reconstruction, particularly the apologetic 'Lost Cause' version trumpeted by Jubal Early (i.e. noble southerners fighting for their independence, and only losing due to sheer numbers). Grant actually passionately contested the 'Lost Cause' apologia, particularly in his memoirs, but it still gained pretty wide acceptance, even to this day.

Werner Heisenberg created a myth about the German nuclear project, claiming several things: that German physicists would never have built the Nazis a bomb, that they deliberately stalled in their work, and that one of them (Bothe, I think) was responsible for screwing up the project due to a bad experiment/incompetence.

TC Pilot wrote: Well, that's sorta important, don't you think? If nonrecognition doesn't necesitate declarations of war, the example doesn't really work.

What i'm trying to say is that's beside the point. The response to the *sneak attack* is what matters.

In fact, so far as "attempts to warn the government" go, here's what they had to say a few hours after the attack: "The Japanese Government regrets to have to notify hereby the American Government that in view of the attitude of the American Government it cannot but consider that it is impossible to reach an agreement through further negotiations."

Or, as Roosevelt put it, "Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack."

I also don't deny the Japanese made a very half assed attempt to warn the United States of an impending war. They *did* try, but not very hard.

It was a sneak attack, and unless these same veterans are turning around and patting Israel on the back for doing the same thing, I don't see any reason to your point. You don't think they have a good reason for being pissed off?

Of course they have reason to be pissed off. They were victims of a sneak attack. What annoys me is that they think it was a *dastardly* sneak attack. Like an invisible rule book says it isn't allowed and the Japanese should feel bad for being prudent. The same people who complain about the morality of the attack are the same people who will vehemently defend western attempts to attack an opponent before an official declaration. Hence the "justified pre emptive strike" doctrine that Bush-ites loved to tout so much.

On topic: Here's another guy to be mentioned, Heinz Guderian. Guderian takes almost total credit for coming up with the operation doctrines for Blitzkrieg, and through much of his book, acts like he invented a totally new brand of warfare. Manuever warfare was nothing new and its use by Germany (Prussia at the time) dated back to Frederick the Great. Guderian participated in the doctrinal advances that brought the concepts of maneuver warfare to the industrial age. However he did not invent it.

He also spends a lot of book making the usual "oh geez i never knew about the holocaust" horseshit and such and is probably one of the major creators of the "innocent Wehrmacht" myths.

TC Pilot wrote:(Bothe, I think) was responsible for screwing up the project due to a bad experiment/incompetence.

The incompetence of the German bomb effort alone doomed it, even if all of Heisenberg's other claims were true

All of this is nothing compared to stuff Ancient authors get away with.

And medieval ones. Kingdom of Prester John, anybody?

Thanas wrote:All of this is nothing compared to stuff Ancient authors get away with.

That is kind of obvious, isn't it? I mean the scarcity of sources is on a wholly different level when we talk about ancient Rome and Greece, let alone Egypt. For large parts of the ancient Egyptian history only a single written source remains, so as long as they are not obviously fantastical or clearly at odds with archaeological findings, the pharaohs and priests who ordered those inscriptions could get away with almost anything. The Battle of Kadesh is a classic example: if the (still relatively scarce) Hittite records had not been found, we would still believe that it was a glorious Egyptian victory.

On a lesser note, I give you the example of Captain Berenger and the Battle of Koh Chang. Most accounts of the battle are derived directly from his after-action report and are blatantly wrong on virtually every detail. As a simple example, he claims to have sunk the torpedo boat Trad (which was actually scrapped in 1973). Yet that after-action report is still used as the primary source on the battle and has created an entirely false image of what actually happened.

Thanas wrote:All of this is nothing compared to stuff Ancient authors get away with.

Heh, I hear there are people who hold Herodotus to be an accurate source of specific information. To this day, people think the Battle of Thermopylae was fought by 300 oiled up Spartan supermen against a massive Persian horde of a million men.

Gil Hamilton wrote:

Thanas wrote:All of this is nothing compared to stuff Ancient authors get away with.

Heh, I hear there are people who hold Herodotus to be an accurate source of specific information. To this day, people think the Battle of Thermopylae was fought by 300 oiled up Spartan supermen against a massive Persian horde of a million men.

Which is even more funnier seing how Herodotus does not talk about oiled Spartans and how his whole account is pretty critical of the Spartans - while praising the courage of the Spartan allies.

What about Edward Gibbon? The view that the Roman Empire fell because of moral decay is still a view that is upheld by many people in the general public, who have not read any books beyond what Gibbon wrote.