The Historian's fallacy – not to be confused with Historical fallacy - is a logical fallacy that occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. It is not to be confused with presentism, a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas (such as moral standards) are projected into the past.
The fallacy was outlined in 1970 by David Hackett Fischer, who suggested it was analogous to William James's psychologist's fallacy. Fischer did not suggest that historians should refrain from retrospective analysis in their work, but he reminded historians that their subjects were not able to see into the future.
As an example, he cited the well-known argument that Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor should have been predictable in the United States because of the many indications that an attack was imminent. What this argument overlooks, says Fischer, citing the work of Roberta Wohlstetter, is that there were innumerable conflicting signs which suggested possibilities other than an attack on Pearl Harbor. Only in retrospect do the warning signs seem obvious; signs which pointed in other directions tend to be forgotten. (See also: hindsight bias.)
My Take - While in principle I agree with this presentation I find the Pearl Harbor analogy somewhat inaccurate. There were those who rightly predicted the attack in great detail because of the events which occurred during the Russo-Japanese War. The Japanese conducted a sneak naval attack on Port Arthur without any declaration of war. Although the Japanese attempted to have a declaration delivered at the last minute to the United States government, the mentality, the strategy and the views of the Japanese was almost identical.
Those who predicted this attack were not uninformed radicals. One of them was Col. Billy Mitchell, who caused so much public controversy regarding his views on the future of air power "his superiors sent him to Hawaii".....to quell the resultant fury of the battleship admirals and get Mitchell off the front pages."
"However, he returned with a scathing report on the inadequate defenses he saw there. He also went to Europe and the Far East to study the advances being made in aviation. After returning from the latter trip in 1924, he wrote a shocking 323-page report–probably the most prophetic document of his career–that stressed that, when making estimates of Japanese air power, 'care must be taken that it is not underestimated.'
"Mitchell believed that Japan was the dominant nation in Asia and was preparing to do battle with the United States. He predicted that air attacks would be made by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines and described how they would be conducted. His report was received with all the enthusiasm of 'a green demolition team approaching an unexploded bomb,' according to one writer. The report was ignored; it is said that even his boss did not read it for two years."
He was later court marshaled for his publically outspoken views of the incompetence of higher ranking commanders with no understanding or vision. Yet everything he said came true.
What is worse of course, it is clear that FDR should have known of the "sneak attack" at least three days before and didn't inform Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short, the commanders at Pearl Harbor, of the depth of his knowledge. There is one part of this that has intrigued me for years.
In William Stephenson's book, A Man Called Intrepid, he certainly gives the impression that Churchill had intelligence of the attack and informed FDR. I will have to go back and read that book.
The thirty years secrets act had expired, so he wrote it to explain their decisions during the war. There was also a fifty years act....which I was really looking forward to seeing expire. As I recall it was extended indefinitely. That's scary since they deliberated picked thirty and fifty years respectively because then all the parties would be dead. Clearly there are prominent families that had dirty...no....let's amend that....potentially filthy laundry that needs hidden, like Joe Kennedy.
Get the book....it is worth the read.
In William Stephenson's book, A Man Called Intrepid, he certainly gives the impression that Churchill had intelligence of the attack and informed FDR. I will have to go back and read that book.
The thirty years secrets act had expired, so he wrote it to explain their decisions during the war. There was also a fifty years act....which I was really looking forward to seeing expire. As I recall it was extended indefinitely. That's scary since they deliberated picked thirty and fifty years respectively because then all the parties would be dead. Clearly there are prominent families that had dirty...no....let's amend that....potentially filthy laundry that needs hidden, like Joe Kennedy.
Get the book....it is worth the read.
No comments:
Post a Comment