I am an economist by profession. I try to sit in the back of the H-War room and not make trouble for people who know what they're talking about.
Recently I read Alan D. Zimm's Attack on Pearl Harbor, which I found absolutely fascinating. He reconsiders every aspect of the Pearl Harbor raid, from conception to aftermath. He is highly critical of the Japanese on the basis of military competency (the Americans, too, of course). The result is to turn much of the standard narrative about Pearl Harbor upside down.
Has there been any critical reaction to his book? What do the professional historians think of it? Is it the ground-breaking work it appears to be? Is Zimm just a crank? Are his conclusions correct? Are they surprising? I find him very persuasive, but I am painfully aware that I don't have the background to evaluate the book properly.
Office of Policy Development & Research
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development