>>Mr. Bergerud,
>>
>> I must ask, have you ever read any of the works that I have cited?
Read this
>>work and if you still do not agree, then we will have to agree to
disagree. I
>>would, however, also like to suggest to you that before you make such a
>>strident ad hominem rebuttal in the future, you might want to consider what
>>is being addressed and just how informed you are on the recent scholarship.
>>After all, this subject is a long way from combat operations in the Pacific
>>during World War II.
>>
>> Chris Havern
>>
>>
I babysat Sumida’s book and it looked interesting. Has a lot of technical
detail that I find interesting. You’d be suprised how much of the technology
developed early in the 20th century showed up in the Pacific in 1942.
Lambert’s work is not published and, as you did not summarize the findings,
I can’t comment.

I studied Anglo-German relations under Raymond Sontag one of the best
diplomatic historians in US history. The naval race ended up a topic for a
seminar topic. I am on pretty good terms with some of the best people in the
field both here and in Germany.

It may be we are talking about different topics. I do not doubt that some of
the people inside the RN held a different view of the German fleet than
publically projected. However, it is real news to me if diplomatic
historians have changed their views concerning the importance of the
Anglo-German naval race in changing Britain’s foreign policy in the
generation before 1914. Quite the contrary: the development of the Triple
Entente would not have been possible without it.

I do not recall making any “strident ad hominem” rebuttals to anything
anyone said. One thing I like about mahan is the lack of mudslinging that
takes place on H-diplo. Take it easy.
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930