The Contestability of the Past
Contestability has always been a major issue for historians, causing disputes and debates for decades regarding events from the past. One major event which has been heavily discussed with major disagreement and controversy between historians from both opposing and similar sides is the bombing of Pearl Harbour which occurred on December 7th, 1941.
The bombing of Pearl Harbour was the culmination of centuries of a patriarchal relationship between the United States and Japan, and the beginning of a four year war, ending in Japan’s bitter defeat. There are many different arguments for the intention behind the attack, including Japan’s will to expand their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, their plan to send a threat to the United States in the hopes of keeping them out of the War, as well as Japan’s plan to take out the entire United States Naval Fleet.
Each of the three given sources provides a different perspective on the events that transpired before, during and after the attack on Pearl Harbour. Source A, a section from Hideki Tojo’s Prison Diary, was written by the Japanese Prime Minister of the time, who was placed in an American prison after the defeat of Japan in the Second World War. The other two sources, Source B and Source C, were written by two American historians, arguing two different perspectives from the side of the United States, the first saying that President Roosevelt did not know about the attack prior and the latter saying that he did.
Hideki Tojo’s Prison Diary (translated by Hideo Miki and Henry Symington in 1992) was written by Hideki Tojo, who was the Japanese Prime Minister between 1941 and 1944, between August 1945 after his capture and December 1948 before his execution. It is only a small fragment of Tojo’s extensive memoirs of the Second World War, giving his personal perspective of the events that ensued, many of which have been passed on and retold to the country of Japan.
Source A shows Tojo’s reasoning for both his country’s and his personal actions, stating that Japan received threats from both the United States and Britain prior to the attack: “…an American admiral made a strong declaration… if war were to break out… the Japanese navy could be sunk in a matter of weeks”. Tojo explains from his point of view that the Japanese government attempted to prevent an outbreak of war between the United States and Japan. However the Allies demanded too much from Japan, forcing the country to build its arms and prepare for the war which was ahead. Japan ultimately made the decision to put in play forward defence, which eventually led to the bombing of Pearl Harbour.
Tojo’s perspective puts Japan on the virtuous side of the war, explaining that they had no other option but to protect their country and attack Pearl Harbour: “Japan attempted to circumvent these dangerous circumstances by diplomatic negotiation… the United states would not retreat from its original position”.
This source, which shows the context and angle from a Japanese position, contests many ideas and beliefs which have been written from an American perspective, such as will be illustrated below. A likely reason for this is that the origin of the source impacts greatly on its perspective and motive. In this case, former Prime Minister Hideki Tojo wants his audience, Japan, to believe that his government was honourable and principled and was doing the right thing for their country. This controversial source illustrates the concept of contestability through interpretation, controlled imagination and judgement. It also reveals disagreements and controversy are inevitable, considering the viewpoints from which the sources were made.
The second given source is an article entitled Pearl Harbour: Fifty Years of Controversy (Source B) written by Charles Lutton for an American journal. Source B includes many themes and opinions which have been debated since the bombing occurred. It references sources which suggest that Franklin D Roosevelt, the United States President at the time, had no prior knowledge of the planned attack on Pearl Harbour. However he does quote sources which refer to the idea that the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, did know about the bombing and chose to keep it private from the United States government: "I think Churchill deliberately allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to go ahead in order to bring the Americans in. He did everything to avoid having the Pacific Fleet warned.”
Many historians have opinions on this controversial topic, supporting both the argument that Roosevelt did know about the planned attack prior, as well as the debate that he didn’t. Charles Lutton is one of many who disagree with that fact. Lutton, appearing to be a proud supporter of his country, has used sources which are insistent that President Roosevelt did not know about the bombing of Pearl Harbour before it happened and that if informed, the United States government would have prevented the loss of life and military equipment as an honest country. One writer which Lutton quotes is English holocaust denier David Irving, who’s views are highly contestable amongst many historians. The second book which Lutton sources is another written by a British author with help from Australian Navy cryptographer Eric Nave. Their book pursues the conspiracy theory that Churchill knew “well before the attack” that it was going to take place, suggesting that Roosevelt may have know also, however he quickly moves on from that. His use of these sources which only prove one side of the debate shows that his work is likely to be biased and bigoted furthering the contestable nature of this source.
This article was written for the American journal The Institute For Historical Review (IHR) which is known for its open debate on the Holocaust, allowing historians and journalists to upload their own works. Charles Lutton submitted many of his articles to this journal on many different controversial topics. This may mean that due to the open-ended nature of the very contestable Holocaust debate, his other essays may also have been written for the purpose of deliberate controversy. This source is not a personal one, meaning it is more reliable, however his contribution to the IHR suggests that he agrees with these ideas of Neo-Nazism and the open Holocaust debate. This could indicate that his views on other events may be skewed, biased and one sided. Despite the fact that Lutton’s sources are credible and that he gives no personal opinions, he himself possesses no integrity as a scholar, making the source less reliable and more likely to be a target to contestability.
The third source given is another article from the Institute of Historical Review, titled Pearl Harbour Attack No Surprise, written by Roger A. Stolley (Source C).This source was originally authored for the Statesman Journal on December 7, 1991, exactly fifty years after the bombing on Pearl Harbour.
In Source C, Stolley recounts personal events and knowledge to convince his audience that President Roosevelt did in fact know about the planned attack on Pearl Harbour before if occurred, contradicting the essay written by Charles Lutton.
Roger A. Stolley references his friend, LTC Clifford M. Andrew, who was a United States Army Intelligence Officer and at one point worked as the Assistant Chief of Staff in the United States Army: “Five men were directly responsible for what happened at Pearl Harbour. I am one of those five men… At least nine months before the Japanese attack… I was assigned to prepare for it”.
This source is considered a secondary source, due to the fact that not only are many of the quotes and facts not directly from Stolley, but it was also written many years after the bombing of Pearl Harbour. In many cases, including this one, being a secondary source makes the information much less reliable and more likely to be subject to contestability.
The difference of opinion and fact between Source B and Source C is a perfect example of contestability of sources from the past. In these two sources, the topic which is debated is the conspiracy theory surrounding who knew about the attack prior, and possibly who didn’t. Their perspectives and choice of sources furthers the debate of contestability, adding
what is contestable in these two sources and what is the debate that they are furthering?
These three sources given are appropriate examples of how difference of opinion and motive can affect the reliability of a source, creating contestability within sources regarding an event. This has been demonstrated through the way …
Bibliography
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/humanities-and-social-sciences/history/structure/
http://www.achistoryunits.edu.au/teaching-history/key-concepts/teachhist-concepts.html
http://www.american-historama.org/1929-1945-depression-ww2-era/why-did-japan-attack%20pearl-harbor.htm
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/12/1/Tojo31-85.html
https://codoh.com/library/authors/2268/?documents_sort=document
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-us-and-japan-after-world-war-ii-3310161
http://www.phdn.org/negation/gravediggers/gom-2002-pearl_harbor_conspiracy.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26161071/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/diary-shows-tojo-resisted-surrender-till-end/#.WpKEhGZL0zU
http://vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/12/1/Stolley119-121.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p431_Lutton.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p119_Stolley.html
http://ns2.wpcomp.com/term-papers.com/papers-dumped-not_wrapped-stripped/10878.htm
http://www.sunburstech.com/sonsanddaughters/Pearlhar2.htm