Pearl Harbor: The Accused

Actually, in 1812 Canada was British

It was the British who burned the White House down

Furthermore, the British forces were launched from bases in Bermuda

The attacks on the East Coast of the America, including Washington, were intended to draw American forces away from the Canadian frontier.

I have not watched all of the documentary but it's OK.

I just felt that I needed to correct the previous reviewer

After all, s/he was saying that this documentary was factually incorrect.

Which is a shame when s/he was also factually incorrect.

Having read and watched so many accounts of Pearl Harbour - both fiction and non-fiction - I was particularly impressed with this account. Yes, it exonerates Admiral Kimmel, who was unfairly and unjustly accused. Not only that, but when all the facts became known, he was not given the recognition and formal exoneration from the highest levels of the U.S. Government. To a Naval Officer such as Admiral Kimmel, to have his honour challenged, is a fate worse than death. I have great admiration for his grandson, and for the documentary makers, for their honest, heartfelt and brilliant telling of a story that is important to know. A nation that fails to understand its history is condemned to repeat it. The movie was riveting - with original footage that I had never seen before - and the performances in it that were letter-perfect. I would highly recommend this to anyone who cares about historical accuracy. It should be must-see in high schools and universities.

UK classified docs confirm this that Japanese in Hawaii sent the info 2 Japan & they used it ... 2 bad the Admirals grand/sons haven't seen & or had access 2 the UK published materials but they prolly never thought 2 go there 2 try & get info but if that is classified still, the Book the Man called Intrepid was based on similar classified UK materials so how much more has never been seen by the public if they can hide such simple info, what else have/are they hidin like what really went on in Antarctica when the US Admiral tried 2 check things out down there & got chased off missin a ship & a couple planes etc ...

It's good at telling the events that unfolded, fails to mention an Australian was the first to crack the Japanese code. Then again some Americans, especially Hollywood, think they cracked enigma. The question it raises is if there was a deliberate decision to allow this attack by the politicians and high command. There's no doubt that FDR thought war was necessary but the US people wouldn't support it. At the time of these events he had already started lend - lease shipments to Britain. US naval ships escorted them as far as Iceland with instructions to retaliate against any submarine attack. Then with economic sanctions and oil embargo against Japan, it was simply a matter of time. As for would they allow this massacre for justification, absolutely not. You'd want everything ready to repulse and destroy your attackers, you have a war caused by them attacking you. It was usual incompetence of all the higher up. If you really want to start conspiracy theory, ask where were the carriers, what was their escort and what were they doing anyway.

Admiral Kimmel is in command of Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attack. He is ostracized and demoted for dereliction of duty. At first, he is overwhelmed by the isolation and the public hatred. This documentary presents various intelligence sources predating the attack which aren't given to Kimmel. He's told about the secret decryption codebreaking effort called Magic and is angrily convinced of his persecution by President Roosevelt.

This rehashes many of the issues already known although it may be new for the uninitiated. My main issue is that the documentary, like many other conspiracy theorists, want to defend Kimmel from all responsibilities. Admiral Stark and bureaucracy are blamed for the ultimate failure to warn Kimmel. Kimmel is at best a cog in the system. He was not forward thinking. He was not imaginative enough. In many ways, he waited to be warned and he was more concerned about sabotage which this documentary never touched upon. This never showed Kimmel doing anything to prepare for an attack other than asking other people for stuff which every military commander does anyways. I would have more sympathy for him if it showed him doing something specific on the ground. As the movie states, he was more intent on training his green troops for an offensive war. He did not foresee the attack himself. Stark certainly comes off poorly as the main villain. As for Kimmel's conspiracy theory on Roosevelt later in life, it doesn't hold water as stated by most of these commentators. A warning was actually sent to him but was only delayed by incompetency. It doesn't move me to feel for the guy who turned into an angry conspiracy nut when the obvious culprit from the movie is an incompetent Stark. I see some reviewers are complaining about 1812. It's weird that some seems proud of it and it's a small unimportant error in the documentary. My main takeaway is that Kimmel is an angry old man who is mostly concerned about himself and his reputation.