A Response to Richard Morrock

My article made no mention of John Toland; nonetheless, in objecting to what I wrote, Morrock attacked Toland more than me. Morrock discredited the data in Toland’s book Infamy (1982) by dismissing him as a “dubious expert” and a “self-trained historian.” His main impeachment of Toland was that he “has endorsed the Holocaust-denying publication, The Barnes Review.” Without saying Toland denied the Holocaust, Morrock smeared him by alleging that he supported Nazis. If it were true that Toland endorsed The Barnes Review, the relevance of that to the lively historical question of Roosevelt’s advance knowledge about the Pearl Harbor attack escapes me. Knowing and admiring Toland, and without seeing Morrock’s evidence, I reserve comment on the surprising statement that Toland endorsed The Barnes Review. A Pulitzer Prize winner, Toland probably needs no defense from me. Nonetheless, continuing attacks on him illuminate the rancor in defenses of Roosevelt -- defenses often made in the absence of attacks. For, unlike Toland, I am a strong admirer of Roosevelt (and Churchill), and had no criticism of his leadership in my article.