John Toland's "The Rising Sun"

[Saffron]

I'm only about 100 pages into this book, but I'm curious to know what you folks think of it? I know it's a bit old, so is the information still accurate?

[Ed Rotondaro]

I'm only about 100 pages into this book, but I'm curious to know what you folks think of it? I know it's a bit old, so is the information still accurate?

Saffron:

I've not read it, but Dennis can probably give his insights. Some feel that Toland is a bit of an apologist for the Japanese. Until I read it, I can't say.

[keschofield]

I'm only about 100 pages into this book, but I'm curious to know what you folks think of it? I know it's a bit old, so is the information still accurate?


Saffron,

I read it years ago so my memories are a bit dusty. But that never stopped me from giving an opinion :rolleyes:, so here goes:

When reading Toland it is important to remember that he is a journalist. He does not practice the research and citing rules of the historian. As a result his facts are hard to independently check.

That having been said, I have always found his books to be very accurate as far as I know.

However, much additional scholarly research and writing about the Japanese side of the conflict has been done since Toland wrote his books. So, some of his observations about Japanese actions and motivations may be wrong.

Hope that helps,

[old_pop2000]

Toland's book is well researched. He actually went to Japan and interviewed the particulars. However, there are more recent accounts of that pre-WWII period and those should be read afterwords. These include:

War Plan Orange by Edward S. Miller

Bankrupting the Enemy by Edward S. Miller

From Mahan to Pearl Harbor by Sadao Asado

If you read these four books, I suspect that you will have a solid understanding of the complex events that led to the Pacific War.

Now, keep in mind that Toland was one of three prominent men who led the faction called "The revisionist". These men believed that Pearl Harbor was not a surprise, that the Roosevelt Administration knew it was coming and set up the conditions for it, to get us into the war. Two other prominent men were Harry Elmer Barnes and Admiral Fuzzy Theobald.

Link to on line document about PH written by Harry Elmer Barnes - http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/pearl25.html

Toland was a historian and author by training. His wife was Japanese.

[Kyle Holgate]

I'm only about 100 pages into this book, but I'm curious to know what you folks think of it? I know it's a bit old, so is the information still accurate?

I don't take any single book as gospel (well, 'cept perhaps the gospel but I digress) - but Rising sun is one of the most complete coverages of the pre-war and war in the Pacific you'll find anywhere. My poor old copy purchased back in the early 80's is pretty ratty as I refer to it quite frequently and have read it cover to cover several times. I should get a new copy...

As Dennis suggests - it may prove eye opening to look at other books such as those he mentioned, though I have to say Warplan Orange is a bit dry. I found Rising sun quite readable in by comparison! I just got Mahan to Pearl harbor - haven't cracked it open yet so can't say. I don't think you'll find much in other books that necessarily contradicts Toland and I think his revisionist ideas possibly came after his writing Rising sun, as there don't seem to be any indications of them IIRC in the book. Good book - I recommend it to anyone interested in the Pacific war - as a paperback it's about 5" thick though - so be warned!

[keschofield]

Now, keep in mind that Toland was one of three prominent men who led the faction called "The revisionist". These men believed that Pearl Harbor was not a surprise, that the Roosevelt Administration knew it was coming and set up the conditions for it, to get us into the war. Two other prominent men were Harry Elmer Barnes and Admiral Fuzzy Theobald.




In high school history (senior year '72-'73 at F.D.Roosevelt H.S. in Hyde Park, NY) I had the opportunity to meet another famous outspoken revisionist, Hamilton Fish (don't remember which roman numeral he was - there have been several). He was a Republican congressman from Dutchess County, NY in 1941. He was very adamant that FDR knew about PH in advance. He spoke to us with the zeal of a preacher about his beliefs. I wasn't convinced then and additional information coming to light since then hasn't changed my mind.

BTW - Dennis, not to argue with you, but Toland was not a historian at any time in his life except perhaps as an undergraduate student or later as a retired journalist. He was a journalist first, and a historian second in the same way that William L. Shirer was. Like Shirer, Toland writes popular history not scholarly history. I had the opportunity to meet him in the mid-1980's when I lived in Danbury, CT. He lived in nearby Ridgefield at the time. A very strange and "stand offish" man.

[Ed Rotondaro]

In high school history (senior year '72-'73 at F.D.Roosevelt H.S. in Hyde Park, NY) I had the opportunity to meet another famous outspoken revisionist, Hamilton Fish (don't remember which roman numeral he was - there have been several). He was a Republican congressman from Dutchess County, NY in 1941. He was very adamant that FDR knew about PH in advance. He spoke to us with the zeal of a preacher about his beliefs. I wasn't convinced then and additional information coming to light since then hasn't changed my mind.

BTW - Dennis, not to argue with you, but Toland was not a historian at any time in his life except perhaps as an undergraduate student or later as a retired journalist. He was a journalist first, and a historian second in the same way that William L. Shirer was. Like Shirer, Toland writes popular history not scholarly history. I had the opportunity to meet him in the mid-1980's when I lived in Danbury, CT. He lived in nearby Ridgefield at the time. A very strange and "stand offish" man.

Kurt:

I remember when Hamilton Fish was a legislator LOL. I think he may been III. The more I study the Pacific the less credence I give to the belief that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. I do blame USN intelligence for not being aware of the location of the IJN carriers, but intel gathering in Japan was always a difficult undertaking. Its one of the reasons why sigint was so important.

[Mart]

Thinking about Toland as a "journalist" rather than a "historian" may not be all that helpful. Just a thought; but these days there is a breed of "narrative historians" who are neither one thing or the other. As an example, I could quote Max Hastings who is a British journalist columnist and historian of some repute, but he is not a historian in the way Glantz is as regards Russia. It is a narrative history, often with informed opinion, which people may or may not agree with. Hastings is very rigorous. I would be tempted to put Stephen Ambrose in this last category, though I have to admit that I feel little respect for him. He lays claim to being an academic historian, but shows none of the rigour of people like Glantz, on the academic side, and none of the journalistic rigour that people like Hastings show.

I don't know where this puts Toland, but if he has been a GOOD journalist, then I would be more tempted to rely on his OVERALL account (at the time it was written) than I would of someone who takes the Ambrose approach. I realize that he (Ambrose) has his fans and detractors.

As regards Toland's "revisionism" about Pearl Harbour, I can't comment except to say that, within limits, it's a respectable point of view, depending on which version you get. He may be wrong, but I don't think it should overshadow his overall achievement.

Hope that makes some kind of sense.


Martin :)

[old_pop2000]

In high school history (senior year '72-'73 at F.D.Roosevelt H.S. in Hyde Park, NY) I had the opportunity to meet another famous outspoken revisionist, Hamilton Fish (don't remember which roman numeral he was - there have been several). He was a Republican congressman from Dutchess County, NY in 1941. He was very adamant that FDR knew about PH in advance. He spoke to us with the zeal of a preacher about his beliefs. I wasn't convinced then and additional information coming to light since then hasn't changed my mind.

BTW - Dennis, not to argue with you, but Toland was not a historian at any time in his life except perhaps as an undergraduate student or later as a retired journalist. He was a journalist first, and a historian second in the same way that William L. Shirer was. Like Shirer, Toland writes popular history not scholarly history. I had the opportunity to meet him in the mid-1980's when I lived in Danbury, CT. He lived in nearby Ridgefield at the time. A very strange and "stand offish" man.
Actually, his training was in drama, since he went to the Yale School of Drama. His 1950's works were short stories, plays and novels. So, one could say that he was a writer and a frustrated dramatist. Toland wrote numerous unpublished novels and thirty plays, before finding his niche in the 1960's and 1970's writing historical non-fiction.

He was first, and foremost, a story teller.

[keschofield]

Kurt:

I remember when Hamilton Fish was a legislator LOL. I think he may been III. The more I study the Pacific the less credence I give to the belief that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. I do blame USN intelligence for not being aware of the location of the IJN carriers, but intel gathering in Japan was always a difficult undertaking. Its one of the reasons why sigint was so important.

One of the Ham Fishes was a secretary of state IIRC. Another was killed in the Spanish American War. Another was the depression area legislator that I mentioned. The latter's son was our congressman when I lived in Dutchess county. I lived there from 1972 to 1980 with time out for college.

[keschofield]

Thinking about Toland as a "journalist" rather than a "historian" may not be all that helpful. Just a thought; but these days there is a breed of "narrative historians" who are neither one thing or the other. As an example, I could quote Max Hastings who is a British journalist columnist and historian of some repute, but he is not a historian in the way Glantz is as regards Russia. It is a narrative history, often with informed opinion, which people may or may not agree with. Hastings is very rigorous. I would be tempted to put Stephen Ambrose in this last category, though I have to admit that I feel little respect for him. He lays claim to being an academic historian, but shows none of the rigour of people like Glantz, on the academic side, and none of the journalistic rigour that people like Hastings show.

I don't know where this puts Toland, but if he has been a GOOD journalist, then I would be more tempted to rely on his OVERALL account (at the time it was written) than I would of someone who takes the Ambrose approach. I realize that he (Ambrose) has his fans and detractors.

As regards Toland's "revisionism" about Pearl Harbour, I can't comment except to say that, within limits, it's a respectable point of view, depending on which version you get. He may be wrong, but I don't think it should overshadow his overall achievement.

Hope that makes some kind of sense.


Martin :)

Martin,

Regarding Ambrose, I couldn't agree with you more.

[Mart]

Martin,

Regarding Ambrose, I couldn't agree with you more.

Phew! That's a relief! To some people he's a god!

Take care

Martin :)

[john964]

Kurt:

I remember when Hamilton Fish was a legislator LOL. I think he may been III. The more I study the Pacific the less credence I give to the belief that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. I do blame USN intelligence for not being aware of the location of the IJN carriers, but intel gathering in Japan was always a difficult undertaking. Its one of the reasons why sigint was so important.
Ed don't entirely blame US Intell the Japanese from what I have read took special pains to hide there fleet. Some of there ways was to sail way off the normal shipping lanes way into the North Pacific. They also kept strict EMCON to the point that they disabled there radios. They also removed the normal radio operaters to hide the operaters signature style of using morse code. I remember reading that that thay could name individual ships just by the IMCO tapping style IIRC Akagi's RO tapping style was like he sat the key on the deck and hit it with his foot. The Kaga's sounded like he was hitting a typewriter.

[old_pop2000]

......
As regards Toland's "revisionism" about Pearl Harbour, I can't comment except to say that, within limits, it's a respectable point of view, depending on which version you get. He may be wrong, but I don't think it should overshadow his overall achievement.



I have no issues with historical revisionism as a method of updating the historical narrative on a sequence or a single event. As time passes, more information is revealed by personal diaries, AAR, papers held in trust, government documents formally released etc. However, taking insignificant or trivial facts or slanting information to support a theory is not good historiography. The Japanese military was well aware of the simple requirement to lift all embargoes and remain a trading partner in good standing with the US. It was cease imperialist aggression against China and Southeast Asia. They refused. Pure and simple. Their own documents and records of meetings proved that they understood that concept.

What is even more disturbing, remains the fact that the IJN told the Navy minister that it could not win the war, due the results of its naval exercises. The numerous times it was gamed out, they could not beat us. Why, on earth, do you have such little regard for your nation and its people, to throw away their lives, in a war that you know, you cannot win.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Phew! That's a relief! To some people he's a god!

Take care

Martin :)

Martin and Kurt (my brother):

Sorry I take umbrage to those remarks against Ambrose. So is popular history a bad thing? Do you have have a set of letters after your name to be a good historian? Barrett Tillman is the best authorities on WWII naval aircraft, but he's not a professor. The late Stephen Ambrose was and he also taught. Look at the bibliography of any his books and you'll see that he has done his research. I don't consider him a god, but merely a good historian who did more to generate interest in military history than many a person. If I had to find a flaw it was his overly excessive hero worship of Eisenhower. Carlo D'Este presented a fair more balanced look at Ike's military career than Ambrose did. In Ambrose's defense, he was heavily involved in the Eisenhower library and may have gotten caught up in his subject. Still I consider it a great tragedy that he died before being able to finish his Pacific war version of Citizen soldiers. I would have liked to have read that book.

You know Robert Massie who has written several best selling books is a popular historian as well as a professor of history. Are "Dreadnought" and "Castles of Steel" less works of history because of the easy reading style? Was Barbara Tuchman a bad historian? If so boys its pistols at 25 paces for the both of ya!

Mike M had the chance to study with Professor Paul Dull, whose book on the Imperial Japanese Navy in WWII is so highly regarded. Well I have that book and while it is factually correct, it is like its namesake, really dull. I would have preferred a more lively account as long as it was accurate. What good is history if it's too boring or dry to read? I'll bet Saffron will agree with me.;)

Please take this gentle rebuff in the spirit it was intended.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed don't entirely blame US Intell the Japanese from what I have read took special pains to hide there fleet. Some of there ways was to sail way off the normal shipping lanes way into the North Pacific. They also kept strict EMCON to the point that they disabled there radios. They also removed the normal radio operaters to hide the operaters signature style of using morse code. I remember reading that that thay could name individual ships just by the IMCO tapping style IIRC Akagi's RO tapping style was like he sat the key on the deck and hit it with his foot. The Kaga's sounded like he was hitting a typewriter.

John:

I agree that there is enough blame to go around for the attack. George Marshall certainly got a pass for not pressing General Short a lot harder for details of his preparations for a possible war. The same goes for Admrial Stark and his oversight of Admiral Kimmel. For several months prior, warnings of imminent war were communicated to Pearl Harbor and nobody took them seriously.

[old_pop2000]

Martin and Kurt (my brother):

Sorry I take umbrage to those remarks against Ambrose. So is popular history a bad thing? Do you have have a set of letters after your name to be a good historian? Barrett Tillman is the best authorities on WWII naval aircraft, but he's not a professor. The late Stephen Ambrose was and he also taught. Look at the bibliography of any his books and you'll see that he has done his research. I don't consider him a god, but merely a good historian who did more to generate interest in military history than many a person. If I had to find a flaw it was his overly excessive hero worship of Eisenhower. Carlo D'Este presented a fair more balanced look at Ike's military career than Ambrose did. In Ambrose's defense, he was heavily involved in the Eisenhower library and may have gotten caught up in his subject. Still I consider it a great tragedy that he died before being able to finish his Pacific war version of Citizen soldiers. I would have liked to have read that book.

You know Robert Massie who has written several best selling books is a popular historian as well as a professor of history. Are "Dreadnought" and "Castles of Steel" less works of history because of the easy reading style? Was Barbara Tuchman a bad historian? If so boys its pistols at 25 paces for the both of ya!

Mike M had the chance to study with Professor Paul Dull, whose book on the Imperial Japanese Navy in WWII is so highly regarded. Well I have that book and while it is factually correct, it is like its namesake, really dull. I would have preferred a more lively account as long as it was accurate. What good is history if it's too boring or dry to read? I'll bet Saffron will agree with me.;)

Please take this gentle rebuff in the spirit it was intended.

I believe that good history is simply historiography or methodology, accuracy of information and conviction of your beliefs. You cannot separate your life's journey and experiences from the history that you read or research.

[john964]

John:

I agree that there is enough blame to go around for the attack. George Marshall certainly got a pass for not pressing General Short a lot harder for details of his preparations for a possible war. The same goes for Admrial Stark and his oversight of Admiral Kimmel. For several months prior, warnings of imminent war were communicated to Pearl Harbor and nobody took them seriously.
PH had so many warnings that they began to be recived as 'Cry Wolf' and they had started to be ignored.

[Ed Rotondaro]

PH had so many warnings that they began to be recived as 'Cry Wolf' and they had started to be ignored.

John:

That is true. It takes the experience of war to hone a military.

[Saffron]

I'll bet Saffron will agree with me.;)


You're right, I do. :)

Books of all subjects, including history, are generally written for two types of audiences: the general public and other members of academia.

Books written for academia, that is to say, one lettered historian to another, are often dry and boring, written as much to impress as to inform. Some of the books I had to read during my master's program were so dry and academia-minded that I once quipped to a classmate, "This book is so dry that if you dropped it into the Pacific Ocean, there wouldn't be enough water left to float a rubber ducky."

I've learned in the classroom that students are more likely to remember something based on how you said it and how it was presented rather than simply what you said. In short, talk to them rather than lecture them. Make historical figures seem real and alive instead of flat, two-dimensional names on a page. Describe the setting, the atomosphere, and for crying out loud, don't be afraid to let your passion for the subject show, because passion can be contagious. Animate yourself. Let the excitement and suspense be heard in your voice, and dump the notion that history is only accurate if it is delivered in a sleep-inducing, yawn-inspiring way ... a litany of facts, dates, and names that have no character or context.

Some books talk to us ... some lecture us. Popular history is popular for a reason. Granted, that's not always a good thing. As an adult, I'm not particularly fond of history books that talk to you like you're still in 8th grade, but there is a happy medium. I'm in no way advocating sacrificing accuracy for presentation, but there really is a stigma attached to history in that the duller it is, the more accurate it is. Fortunately, that is changing. Some marvelous authors who manage to bring complicated subjects into the realm of the average person or "amateur" historian are Michio Kaku and Simon Schama. Neither shirked their accuracy but didn't obfuscate history with jargon or words no one but PhD's use.

As for Stephen Ambrose, unfortunately I can't speak for his literary works. I'm only familiar with him for his commentaries on several documentaries I've seen.

[clacton2]

[QUOTE=Saffron;2068] Some marvelous authors who manage to bring complicated subjects into the realm of the average person or "amateur" historian are Michio Kaku and Simon Schama. Neither shirked their accuracy but didn't obfuscate history with jargon or words no one but PhD's use.

Hi,
I agree wholeheartedly about Simon Schama, he is concise, generally very accurate, whilst at the same time bringing his subject matter to life for the reader. He has also carried this happy knack over into the documentaries he now makes for British tv on historical subjects ( don't know whether you get them over in the states ).
Jon;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

[QUOTE=Saffron;2068] Some marvelous authors who manage to bring complicated subjects into the realm of the average person or "amateur" historian are Michio Kaku and Simon Schama. Neither shirked their accuracy but didn't obfuscate history with jargon or words no one but PhD's use.

Hi,
I agree wholeheartedly about Simon Schama, he is concise, generally very accurate, whilst at the same time bringing his subject matter to life for the reader. He has also carried this happy knack over into the documentaries he now makes for British tv on historical subjects ( don't know whether you get them over in the states ).
Jon;)

Jon:

I am embarrassed to admit that I am not familiar with Schama. Can you educate me on his works, etc? Thanks!

[keschofield]

Martin and Kurt (my brother):

Sorry I take umbrage to those remarks against Ambrose. So is popular history a bad thing? Do you have have a set of letters after your name to be a good historian? Barrett Tillman is the best authorities on WWII naval aircraft, but he's not a professor. The late Stephen Ambrose was and he also taught. Look at the bibliography of any his books and you'll see that he has done his research. I don't consider him a god, but merely a good historian who did more to generate interest in military history than many a person. If I had to find a flaw it was his overly excessive hero worship of Eisenhower. Carlo D'Este presented a fair more balanced look at Ike's military career than Ambrose did. In Ambrose's defense, he was heavily involved in the Eisenhower library and may have gotten caught up in his subject. Still I consider it a great tragedy that he died before being able to finish his Pacific war version of Citizen soldiers. I would have liked to have read that book.

You know Robert Massie who has written several best selling books is a popular historian as well as a professor of history. Are "Dreadnought" and "Castles of Steel" less works of history because of the easy reading style? Was Barbara Tuchman a bad historian? If so boys its pistols at 25 paces for the both of ya!

Mike M had the chance to study with Professor Paul Dull, whose book on the Imperial Japanese Navy in WWII is so highly regarded. Well I have that book and while it is factually correct, it is like its namesake, really dull. I would have preferred a more lively account as long as it was accurate. What good is history if it's too boring or dry to read? I'll bet Saffron will agree with me.;)

Please take this gentle rebuff in the spirit it was intended.


Ed,

Please don't take umbrage at my opinion of Ambrose. There are lots of reasons that I feel the way I do about him. Politics is part of the issue and there is no need to go into that here. Plagerism, however, is a major sin as far as I'm concerned. Once you commit plagerism in this "fraternity", you're out. No warnings given. Plagerism is dishonest and shows a lack of thorough source checking. My opinion is just my personal opinion and I'm not trying to convert anyone. I was simply agreeing with Mart. The fact remains that Ambrose is not around to defend himself and I'm not comfortable debating the merits of his efforts. I'm sorry if my opinion offends you in any way.

As to popular vs. scholarly history; they both have a valuable place in the study of history. Popular history is best at telling a story that the reader is not familiar with. Scholarly history is part of the rigorous process of advancing historical knowledge and cementing its place in the curriculum. Popular history is lighter reading and does a fantastic job of bringing more of the audience into our field. This is true IF it is well researched and thorough. I do not believe that anyone needs to have an alphabet salad behind their name before they can be considered a scholar. I have only a BA and I consider myself a scholar. Scholarly history is that which is done with exhaustive research, rigid adherance to the rules of evidence, religious devotion to the practice of citing sources and acknowledging other authors, AND has successfully undergone a rigorous examination by one's peers. Many authors have written both types of history. Barbara Tuchman is a perfect example. Paul Dull is an interesting examaple. Would you recommend his book on the IJN to a beginner? I wouldn't. But I submit that you can't claim to have an advanced knowledge of the IJN without having studied his book (even with a few flaws).

I'm not trying to start a huge debate here. I'm just explaining my opinions.

[clacton2]

[QUOTE=clacton2;2087]

Jon:

I am embarrassed to admit that I am not familiar with Schama. Can you educate me on his works, etc? Thanks!

Ed,
These two links should give you all you need to know about one of my favourite historians ( obviously one of Saffy's as well ):
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/arthistory/html/dept_faculty_schama.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Schama

Hope they help my friend
Jon:)

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed,

Please don't take umbrage at my opinion of Ambrose. There are lots of reasons that I feel the way I do about him. Politics is part of the issue and there is no need to go into that here. Plagerism, however, is a major sin as far as I'm concerned. Once you commit plagerism in this "fraternity", you're out. No warnings given. Plagerism is dishonest and shows a lack of thorough source checking. My opinion is just my personal opinion and I'm not trying to convert anyone. I was simply agreeing with Mart. The fact remains that Ambrose is not around to defend himself and I'm not comfortable debating the merits of his efforts. I'm sorry if my opinion offends you in any way.

As to popular vs. scholarly history; they both have a valuable place in the study of history. Popular history is best at telling a story that the reader is not familiar with. Scholarly history is part of the rigorous process of advancing historical knowledge and cementing its place in the curriculum. Popular history is lighter reading and does a fantastic job of bringing more of the audience into our field. This is true IF it is well researched and thorough. I do not believe that anyone needs to have an alphabet salad behind their name before they can be considered a scholar. I have only a BA and I consider myself a scholar. Scholarly history is that which is done with exhaustive research, rigid adherance to the rules of evidence, religious devotion to the practice of citing sources and acknowledging other authors, AND has successfully undergone a rigorous examination by one's peers. Many authors have written both types of history. Barbara Tuchman is a perfect example. Paul Dull is an interesting examaple. Would you recommend his book on the IJN to a beginner? I wouldn't. But I submit that you can't claim to have an advanced knowledge of the IJN without having studied his book (even with a few flaws).

I'm not trying to start a huge debate here. I'm just explaining my opinions.

Hi Kurt:

Obviously I was not trying to start any angry debate, more of a teasing nature. I had heard some allegations of plagerism attached to the late Dr. Ambrose, but from what I understand it was more a problem with his footnoting than a deliberate attempt to lift someone else's work. Considering the massive amounts of sources that a large history book has, I can understand such mistakes. Also books of that size are frequently team efforts with underpaid research assistants doing the grunt work and all too often missing something. Now if you can point me to anything that shows he serious violated the code such as an out of court settlement, etc. I will revise my opinion of him. It does you credit that you won't attack him further since he is as you say not in a position to defend himself. I agree that there is no need to start a debate here and as far as I'm concerned the matter has been explained to my satisfaction. Respectfully,