by Dan K » Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:06 pm
Fuchida's account was erroneous to the point of willful lying and condemmed as such in Japan over 30 years ago. Unfortunately, as his was one of the earliest accounts in English, and he was respected (by the Allies) for his roles (wartime, postwar cooperation), his account became the basis for much of what is written in Engliah.
Within the text, the authors clearly and specifically point out these major errors/ommissions and correct the record, with significant changes to the narrative , save for the final outcome.
It will change your perspective about the battle.
Fuchida's account was erroneous to the point of willful lying and condemmed as such in Japan over 30 years ago. Unfortunately, as his was one of the earliest accounts in English, and he was respected (by the Allies) for his roles (wartime, postwar cooperation), his account became the basis for much of what is written in Engliah.
Within the text, the authors clearly and specifically point out these major errors/ommissions and correct the record, with significant changes to the narrative , save for the final outcome.
It will change your perspective about the battle.