Pearl Harbor in Print: The 60th Anniversary Articles reviewed

Reviews by Michael Gawell

World War II History 60th Anniversary Special    July 2001

 

Aviation History    January 2002

Military History 60th Anniversary Edition     December 2001

 

Naval History: Attack on America 1941    December 2001

 

PEARL HARBOR: America's Call to Arms   LIFE Magazine Collector's Edition

With all the hype of the movie this last summer, and the actual 60th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor Attack falling on December7, 2001, there has been exceptional coverage of the "Day of Infamy".  In addition to the coverage, and the movie, numerous comparisons have been drawn between Pearl Harbor, and the Terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, and the Pentagon in Washington, DC. 

 I have examined with much interest the various magazines as they were put onto the local bookshelves for purchase, and then voraciously read, and digested the information.  Like any other offering, some excel at some things, and some fall short of the mark.

 World War II History 60th Anniversary Special July 2001

 This is the best of the bunch.  The writing is good, the information concise, and some of it either a new analysis, or at least interesting to the reader.  The special edition includes a review of the best books on the raid.  My PERSONAL opinion is that they left off the best book on the subject, that of Stan Cohen's East Wind Rain.  It has already been reviewed, so I shall not endeavor to reinvent my own wheel.  Michael E. Haskew, the reviewer states his preference for At Dawn We Slept by Gordon Prange.  I disagree, but not by direct knowledge, but from others more an authority on the subject than myself who have enunciated the errors of Mr. Prange's research, and the methods he used while conducting his research.  He dismisses another book reviewed on these pages, Infamy by John Toland.  Again, I have to disagree, I believe Toland makes a compelling case that the United States SHOULD have known.

 Other articles of great interest in this edition are the debunking of the Midget Submarine theory by Ken Hackler.  In this article Mr. Hackler concludes a very compelling case against the possibility, and the assertion by Naval Institute writers that a Midget submarine successfully torpedoed the W. Virginia, and the Oklahoma.  My personal favorites were articles, and interviews with surviving Japanese Pilot Zenji Abe, and how the Japanese home island population reacted to the attack.  Highly recommended.  

Aviation History January 2002

 Not a special edition per se, but it does provide a few articles and editorial on the raid.  The Cover Story is on the contributions of the pilots who flew the P-36 Mohawks into combat by Ron Darcy that day.  The article covers an important aspect of the raid as more P-36s were airborne that P-40 fighters to take on the attacking Japanese aircraft.  My only wish is that the article had been a bit more in depth on the raid, and a bit lighter on the development of the P-36.  The contribution of these aircraft could have been highlighted, and there is only passing mention of George Sterling, who accounted for one Japanese aircraft while flying the P-36 before he himself was killed by a escorting Zero fighter.  I do like the account of the actions given through Darcy by Harry Brown, who shot down 2, and Philip Rasmussen who bagged one.

Aviation History follows up with a very "on-target" editorial on remembering the Day of Infamy, and an article on the B-17 flight into war.  Unfortunately they did not stop there.  Dick Smith contributed an article/model kit build review of the Hasagawa B5N2 Kate in 1/48 scale.  His review of the kit itself is very basic, but essentially all right.  If he had stopped there, he would have been fine.  He goes on to deliver half an article on what aircraft he had decided to build from the Pearl Harbor attack, giving the name of the pilot, and how he kit bashed his torpedo from the Nichimo kit.  From there we go down hill.  His call outs for colors to be used are entirely incorrect for a Kaga Kate, and then he goes so far as to add yellow quick identification markings on the leading edges of the wings.  These markings were not added to Japanese aircraft until over a year after the Pearl Harbor raid.  If he had followed the directions of the Pearl Harbor decal Set from Eagle Strike he should have known this.  He also misreferences the color of the warhead of the torpedo, calling it dark green instead of Black as they were.  Mr. Smith needs to spend some time on our sister site www.j-aircraft.com and read the research, and actual informaton provided which specifically state the colors and markings of both the aircraft, and the ordinance.  Recommended.

 Military History: December 2001

 OK, Let me state right up front I am very biased on this one.  The cover story, highlighted with some very stunning cover art, is written by David Aiken whom I consider to be both a friend and a mentor to me on the subject of Pearl Harbor.  I am incredibly proud of him, and the work that he has gathered, and written.  Mr. Aiken proceeds to take us through the initial seven minutes of the Pearl Harbor Raid as well as first hand interviews with surviving members of the attack force including the development of the very deadly Type 91 Modification 2 torpedo they utilized.  The Magazine is worth purchasing for this article by itself, and I am in deep anticipation of "Das Book" as David puts it.  There is also an article on a Korean spy's attempt to warn the United States about the raid.  I have to confess I have not had time to read it, but it does concur with findings made by John Toland in Infamy.  Highly Recommended.

 Naval History: Attack on America 1941

 Naval History has a reputation for accuracy, but I find it curious that they are also the one's who brought what I believe to be faulty research that ended in the conclusion of midget submarines at Pearl Harbor successfully launching torpedoes.  Peter Hsu, Cmdr. John Rodgaard, Carroll Lucas, and Captain Andrew Biache Jr., the ones who conducted that research have returned with an article that provides analysis of the explosion that destroyed the USS Arizona.  After reading it twice, I am still not quite sure what their point is.  They are still asserting that the submarines fired upon the USS W. Virginia, and USS Oklahoma.  OK?  Where is the Submarine?  How come it has never been found?  When one DID penetrate the harbor no less than 6 ships engaged it, and sunk it, yet nobody recalls seeing one that supposedly "broached" (broke the surface) in the most observed portion of the harbor at the time it was most observed.  It tends to put their methodology, and photo analysis of the Arizona to question.  It is interesting to read a portion of their findings, and I am interested to see if they now insist that the USS Arizona was torpedoed.  Currently I don't believe they will state that, but if they do, it would be a disservice to history.  The Arizona succumbed to bombs, not a torpedo. 

 The editorials draw comparisons again with the September 11, 2001 attacks, and there is also an article on the Cynthia Olson that was sunk by the Japanese by their submarine cordon.  I had never heard of this story, and while only 1/2 way through the article, it is well written, and interesting.

Recommended with a bit of caution

 LIFE Magazine Collector's Edition: PEARL HARBOR - America's Call to Arms  

I bought this in August in full anticipation of a really fine edition of collector photos since I had much of the original photography and news articles from LIFE already in my possession.  I feel let down.  Yes the photography is exactly what you would expect from LIFE.  Exceptionally good, but it seems they really left a lot of the pertinent stuff out.  If they had used their own files, and published verbatim the articles as they were published back in 1941, and 1942, this would have been a GREAT time capsule.  Instead it is some of the usual photography seen time and again in every other book, with writing that takes on a decidedly leftist/liberal bent.  The movie reviews are a nice touch, as are some of the interviews with survivors and veterans of the attack, but the injection of a political point of view into the writing style really ruined it for me.  They casually dismiss all the information that may hold FDR, or anyone in the hierarchy partially responsible for the attack, and revert to the tired and worn excuses that hang the entire debacle on Adm. Kimmel, and General Short.  I am sorry I just do not buy it.  While they are partially responsible, the higher echelons must also bear some responsibility to the lack of preparedness at the time of Pearl Harbor.  The writing of war was on the wall.  Buy it for the pictures, and the quality of those photographs, but read it with a discerning eye.

 Recommended with Strong Reservations.  

Would you like to submit a book review?  Any book any subject is welcome as long as it somehow pertains to US military action during any era.  Mail your reviews to:

 Library@us-aircraft.com or directly to me at rockavenger@hotmail.com