The Case for Pearl Harbor Revisionism, The Occidental Quarterly, 1:2, Winter 2001. A small group of revisionist investigators has disputed the orthodox interpretation of US entry into WWII. Revisionists argue that, instead of following an aggressive plan of conquest, Japanese moves were fundamentally defensive efforts to protect vital Japanese interests. And instead of seeing the U. S. simply reacting to Japanese aggression, as the orthodox version would have it, the revisionists see the U. S. goading the Japanese--by aiding China (with whom Japan was at war) and engaging in military expansion, quasi-secret alliances, and economic warfare--to take belligerent actions. Finally, some revisionists claim that Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor but refused to alert the military commanders in order to have a casus belli to galvanize the American people for war. Many revisionists see Roosevelt's goal to have been achieving war with Germany by the "back-door." This article finds most of the revisionists arguments to be more convincing than the general orthodox position.

confrontation that might lead to him being ousted as prime minister by Tory MPs, amongst whom he was widely disliked. It is in this resolve – and his accompanying public oratory – that Churchill’s most significant contribution at this time to Britain’s continuing in the war was reflected. Whereas Halifax thought it reasonable to seek a mediated peace involving either Mussolini, or neutral parties, Churchill – as far as available government documents show – was against any such moves. Whilst Kelly provides a quite gripping account of these tense meetings, other authors have explored these in more depth, and provided a fuller sense of these proceedings including Martin Gilbert, John Lukacs, and Robin Prior, amongst others. The book concludes with an overview of the Battle of Britain, its key dates and developments explored in the final chapter. Whereas Bergström’s volume is clear that The Few’s dogged resistance led to the cancellation of the potent threat posed by Operation Sea Lion, Kelly confirms that Hitler was far more focused on invading Russia than Britain. This view has been espoused for many years, Hitler undoubtedly adopting a ‘wait and see’ approach to Britain in the hope that a peace settlement could be agreed without the need for an invasion, once the British recognized that they could not prevail. Not explored in any detail, Kelly’s approach does provide a rather different context within which to view the Battle, and does not automatically link The Few’s undoubted heroism with an abandoned invasion. Kelly draws extensively upon a wide range of sources which area detailed to the book’s end, each reference confirming the key part of the sentence in the text to which it relates. There is no separate bibliography. The volume is illustrated with a range of black-and-white images, many familiar. Maps showing the development of the war during 1940 would have eased geographical comprehension. Never Surrender’s key strength is its readability, rather than in providing fresh perspectives on the events leading up to and including 1940 in the sense of historical scholarship. This is not intended as a criticism. Its narrative style draws upon an extensive range of sources which both enliven and offer extra dimensions to events oft-covered in earlier accounts, and in this sense, it offers a valuable, engaging introduction to 1940 as a year of pivotal significance. The other key factor which shines throughout is the critical importance of effective leadership, and how fragile morale can be when exposed to corrosive defeatism, in its absence.

Commemorative biography already had a long history. Biographies were published on the occasion of anniversaries and other commemorative milestones to remember those men and women who had lived remarkable lives in the public eye. Such works still appear today. Commemorative biography, in seeking to consolidate the subject’s reputation, is seldom scholarly. The biographical subject is seen as a unique person, rather than a representative of his time, environment, or group.