Days of Infamy (The Pacific War Series)

The age old questions are never answered but the reader keeps asking - why? Why were out carrier's at sea and why didn't the Japanese keep coming to the West Coast to inflict more damage than they already had done?

This was an enjoyable read. Recommend it. As the author of another military book I found this one to keep me in the pages. Learned a little too, which is always a benefit.

DICK JUGE
Arthur
'The Historic Northwest Passage and the CGC STORIS: The story of a young man growing up in the Coast Guard in the 1950s'

I learned things about the attack I never knew before. I did not know that battleships bomboarded the east coast and Honolulu and all of the Pearl Harbor facilities on 12/8. I also was unaware that the lexitngton was sunk and the enterprise was disabled. I did not know any Japanese ships were sunk

Really first rate research on the details. What was really impressive was the research on what it was like to live on Oahu before and after the atrtack. I knew some people who were there and this is the first time experiences such as they described to me appear in a book. Well written all the way through. Any WWII buffs out there, this is a must read.

I enjoy reading fiction and this is what this is, written by two historians whom have never had a shot fired at them in anger, much less ever been in the military. Its fiction, some of it enjoyable but fiction. To have what they claim might have happened, would have been the entire remake of the US military. If you read the book with that in mind its enjoyable

When a Marine like Ollie North endorses a book, how can one disagree? The problem is that Ollie, like the authors, don't know Navy. I hate to say this - I respect Gingrich greatly - but it is painfully obvious after the first few pages that the authors don't know a breech block from a bilge keel.

OK, some research was obviously done. Seeing academics research WW II naval combat in the Pacific (the current ghetto of WW II history) is like watching a dancing bear - you are to be amazed not at the grace of the dance, but that the bear dances at all.

But just because some research was done is not justification to excuse it for not being done right. This book contains numerous, many, a flood of technical and conceptual errors. In some cases, whole turns of plot are generated from wrong assumptions and impossibilities. Let me mention a few - I'll start on about page 47, because by that time in the book I was so shocked at the inaccuracies that I started underlining them.

Somehow the Pearl Harbor main channnel gets blocked. The main channel at Pearl is now and was then 400 yards wide. The largest ships in the fleet, battleships, were 200 yards long. So, even if the Japanese managed to sink a ship broadside in the middle of the channel, there still would have been 100 yards of clearance. I've navigated the Panama Canal, and there are places there that are a lot narrower, and ships make it past without problems. The Suez canal isn't much wider. In the North African campaign, ports were blocked much tighter than that, and ships still made the transit. The myth of "blocking the channel" originated from Prange, who was quoting Fuchida, who obviously had no idea of how wide the channel was.

A Japanese battleship tries some shore bombardment against Oahu. To get into position, according to the times and locations given in the book, the battleships would have had to steam at about 55 knots. Then the battleships encounter US shore batteries. The authors make the Army's coastal defense batteries out to be untrained incompetents. In fact, most of those soldier in the CD Corps were long-service professionals. CD batteries, with long base lines between directors and surveyed ranges, could generally hit consistently at long range, and 10,000 yards range (the range of the battle in the book) was point-blank for them. The authors allow them one near miss on a DD.

The authors have Admiral Draemel, leading a night DD attack on the Japanese battleship, agonize that his ships would be "clobbered" at 20,000 yards. According to the Naval War College Maneuver and Fire Rules, hit rates against DDs at that range would be on the order of 1%. SInce Draemel would have had to gone to the NWC, he should have known that - or the authors ought to have known it and not had him say such a silly thing.

The authors have Draemel attack with "nine destroyers and destroyer escorts." Destroyer escorts did not enter the fleet until much later, and there were none at Pearl Harbor.

Those nine ships were attacking in line abreast with 400 yards between ships. Standard doctrine for line ahead was 700 yards daytime, 1000 yards night. Line abreast in such an attack would have been nearly impossible to maintain and would likely have resulted in collisions. No naval officer would have used that formation for such an attack.

Standard naval terminology is NEVER used in the book. What naval officer ever said, "fire at will"? "Flank speed, bearing 260 degrees"? Instead, how about "Open fire." How about, "All ahead flank, indicate turns for 25 knots, come left new course two six zero degrees"? Naval officers are drilled constantly in standard command language, and cannot be qualified to stand as conning officer or officer of the deck without having those commands down by heart. How can anyone think of writing a naval novel without understanding how orders are given?

Then there is the stumper that I had to read three times to figure out:"On my mark, prepare to ..." In the navy, there is the prep signal, and the execute signal.

The authors somewhere have heard about "ripple fire," and so they have the Japanese battleships fire their turrets at two second intervals. Anyone who knows anything about fire control would know that would make spotting near impossible. Ripple fire was a short delay - like a quarter of a second - between firing adjacent guns, to prevent mutual shell interference. Including all the guns, the total duration of a ripple was maybe a second.

The authors have a battleship at 22 knots burning fuel 30 times faster than at 10 knots. Double the speed requires the power to be squared, so the actual fuel consumption would have been about 4-5 times.

The authors give the four-piper destroyer Ward a broadside of 8 torpedoes - in fact, she had 6 on a side. They give her a gun turret forward, when in fact her guns were in open deck mounts.

The authors had a Japanese admiral order 1,800 ton destroyers to tow a 36,000 ton battleship. This, in submarine waters, when he had only 2 DDs available, and also had a heavy cruiser available for the role. He had Japanese divers go over the side AT NIGHT to inspect for screw and rudder damage, this evidently done while the ship was being towed at 6 knots.

The Japanese Kongo class battleship was called "bigger than anything the [US] Navy now had afloat." North Caroline and Washington were both operational at that time. A US heavy cruiser was identified as almost as powerful as a battle cruisers - let's see, 10,000 tons v. 36,000 tons, 8-inch guns v. 14-inch, one wonders where the authors got this equivalency.

The authors keep having the Japanese employ their aircraft in units of 5 or 10. The basic formation units were the Shotai and Chotai (excuse spelling if off), units of 3 aircraft and 9 aircraft.

The authors arm the US dive bombers with AP bombs to attack carriers. US dive bombers going after carriers used 500# and 1000# GP bombs with 1/10 second fuses.

Yamamoto refuels his whole fleet at sea, except two carriers miss out on about 700 tons of fuel. This was impossible on two counts: first, the Japanese oilers were two days steaming north of Kaido Butai; second, they did not have the pumping capacity to transfer that much fuel. To refuel Yamamoto's ships to the levels indicated would have required about 12,000 tons of fuel or more, and the Japanese oiler might have been able to manage about 500 to 800 tons in a full day UNREP. This little logistics boo-boo makes all the rest of the book impossible.

The authors continually refer to "carrier scout planes" as if the carriers had specialized aircraft for this role. In fact, the Americans used the SBD and the Japanese used the B5N in that role. The SBD scouts carried 500# GP bombs and doctrine had them seek out and attack the carrier deck to put it out of action. Instead
the authors, obviously not knowing standard doctrine, has the scout SBD attack the battleship before searching for the carriers.

The authors do not understand naval communications, in spite of the fact that one of their heros is a communicator, and communications play a huge part in their story. They have Japanese aircraft that did not carry voice radios having nice radio chats, and ships breaking radio silence over and over again thinking that a short broadcast would not reveal their positions, which was flat wrong for both sides. In fact, Japanese voice radios were unreliable and of poor performance, to the extent that most Zero pilots had their radios removed. Their only reliable long-range communications was HF CW keyed transmissions. Carriers in particular had limited numbers of radios that could monitor only one frequency at a time and had a large number of nets they had to monitor. Yet, the authors have the Japanese search aircraft each on a different frequency (wrong), has Navy strike aircraft talking to Army heavy bombers (different nets), and of course, with a politician as an author, the whole war stops and the admirals tune their limited number of radios to hear Roosevelt's "Day of Infamy" speech. Only a politician would think that would happen .....

B-17s trained to bomb warships at 8,000 to 18,000 feet. The authors have them coming in at 3,000 feet and getting shot up by AA. The Japanese battleships are given their late-war complement of 25mm AA guns, rather than what they had at the beginning of the war.

The authors have the US ships with CIC spaces (combat information centers), which were actually not installed on ships until late 1942.

The authors evidently do not understand that aircraft had arming switches on their bombs along with arming vanes, so that the bomb had to be armed, released, and travel some distance from the aircraft before it could explode. This would prevent them from exploding if an aircraft crashed on takeoff. The authors seem to like having aircraft bombs explode in that way. And, like any good Vin Diesel movie, any deck crash automatically means a huge fire.

Japanese bombers by doctrine came in to the attack one at a time, keying their aim point off the leader. The authors have them coming in two at a time to bracket a ship if it should turn one way or the other, something that could not be done (communications, plese?).

They also state that the Japanese AP bomb delivered by the B5N Kate was overweight for that aircraft. They again did not do their research correctly - they used the weight of the 40 cm shell, which was used to build the bomb, but when the shell was converted into a bomb they machined off several hundred pounds of metal and added some weight to the bursting charge to get it up to 50#. The bomb weighed just under 800 kg, the spec payload of the aircraft, weighing just the same as a torpedo. The authors have several paragraphs agonizing how the B5N Kate pilots had to take off overweight, all of which, of course, is bogus. They also claim that an AP bomb could pass through a carrier and explode underneath it and break the ship's back. With a 50 pound bursting charge? Ignorant. No one thought that at the time.

The authors have one bomb hit on the stern of Enterprise take out the entire arresting gear system. The system was specifically designed to prevent that. All the arresting gear had individual, independent systems for each wire. The course of the battle concocted by the authors depends upon this technical error. They also equip the carriers with deck bulldozers and electric carts to move aircraft on the hanger deck. These innovations were not introduced until 1943.

The authors have Fuchida landing on a carrier, and then gunning his engine after hitting the deck in case he missed the wires. That is the modern procedure for angled carrier decks, and was not used for straight-deck carriers. If they missed the wires, they went into the barriers.

Well, that takes me only to page 129 - there is a lot more problems later as the book goes on, but this review is dragging on in length, and I think I have made my point without needed to further pile on the evidence. Most of these errors could have been picked up by any competent naval officer with some WW II background. Couldn't the authors take the time to have one read the draft?

But I do want to make another point. The authors really have no idea of the mentality of the fighting man in WW II. I think that they were weened on too many re-runs of MASH or Oliver Stone anti-war movies, because they have all their heros having a nice cry at some time or another (at least 5 or 7 incidents, if I recall correctly), and each character has a page or two where they are convinced that they all are going to die, and that their next day/hour/mission will be their last. One AAC pilot practically mutinies and refused to go on a mission which he thinks is suicidal, and when he does go, of course, the colonel cries. Overall, these characters are just too touchie-feelie, too 1960's Woodstock to be credible. I will bet anyone a cantelope that the authors have never met a real live combat aviator (well, OK, Gingrich probably knows McCain), because they have no concept of the true devil-may-care arrogance that fueled the pilots of the period. Instead, in the author's world combat pilots obsess about dying and cry a lot, which I frankly feel is a bit insulting to those brave men.

The bottom line is that I feel that this book is a disaster to naval history. With their credentials and all the hype and endorsements for the book, there are going to be a lot of people ignorant of naval history that are going to take what is in this book as gospel. They are going to take all these errors and believe that is the way it was, and maybe one or two will write their own books or blogs and promulgate the errors further. There will be traffic for years to come beating down a whole new crop of myths and misinformation.

Overall: not recommended.

This is the sequel to Gingrich and Forstchen's "Pearl Harbor," which came out one year earlier, and covers the period evening of December 7 -- morning of December 11, 1941. The great flaw of this book is that it doesn't cover what one of the three main characters of the previous book, Cecil Stanford, was doing during this time. This book is all about a single battle, which could be called the First Battle of the Hawaiian Islands in this altered version of the Pacific War.

The premise is that Yamamoto, desperate to get the American carriers to engage so he can sink them with his six carrier air groups, sends two battleships to bombard Oahu so the carriers will reveal themselves. I won't tell you exactly how the battle develops, only that no one in the area gets much sleep over this period of time, and a lot of people, especially those flying older planes, get killed.

Alan Zimm spent a lot more bytes explaining everything that was wrong with this book than I will to praise it. I will engage with only two of his points. The first point is that the Japanese oilers were too far away to support extended fleet operations near Hawaii. Gingrich and Forstchen are aware that the oilers were far away (although it appears they have them in the wrong location) and aware that the Japanese fleet was low on fuel. This is the major reason the action breaks off after the morning of December 9 when each side gets its last hits in. In reality, Nagumo broke off the attack too early because preserving his fleet was the most important consideration, but in this book, the more aggressive Yamamoto is willing to lose whole carriers to sink the American carriers and is consequently willing to push all his ships and men to the limit. Nevertheless, he must bow to reality on the third day of the war and retreat to refuel. I found this to be an acceptable deviation from real history.

The second point is perhaps more significant. Zimm refers to the well-known bravado and confidence of military aviators to argue that they would not get so emotionally bent out of shape as they do at a few points in this book. I think Gingrich and Forstchen's decision to show the emotional torment of the men was the right one. Even if men at the time could not show their emotions in this way, contemporary readers do and will sympathize more with men who fully appreciate the fact they are going to die, agonize over it, but ultimately do their duty. I served in the Navy like he did (although in a different capacity) and, having been a young man then, felt my emotions more keenly than I do now.

The last book showed Stanford narrowly escaping the Japanese bombardment of northern Malaya during their predawn attacks on that British colony. If they weren't going to include him in this book, it almost would have been better for Gingrich and Forstchen to kill him off. But the fact they didn't also leaves open the possibility that just as this book was mostly about Watson and Fuchida, the next book will be mostly about Stanford and Fuchida fighting in the same area but on different sides. Then, a fourth book could reunite the three, either at the end of the war or (my preference) during a particularly hot battle somewhere in the Pacific. I sincerely hope that Gingrich's schedule permits him to write a third book in this series. If not, Forstchen should consider doing it alone, or with another co-author.

Days of Infamy is an alternative "What if ...?" novel. What if Admiral Yamamoto himself led the attack on Pearl Harbor and then sought out the American Carriers that were not in Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack? What if Admiral "Bull" Halsey also decided to seek out the Japanese Carriers and bring the war directly to them? The result is a lot of battle action and tactics.

This is a very enjoyable novel with good characterizations and descriptions. Since it is fiction the reader has no idea of how things will turn out and it becomes a real page turner. But, since it is mostly fiction, the reader has no idea of what is pure fiction and what is based on actual fact. The failure of electronic bomb release mechanisms and dud torpedoes is based on real history. But what of the medal of honor winners; was that based on real people or entirely fictitious? The constant worry that both Yamamoto and Halsey had concerning fuel to keep their ships running was something that I imagine was based on fact. That was an aspect of war in the vast regions of the Pacific ocean that would have been of a prime concern but of which I have read little.

This is a good book but I believe I prefer Gingrich and Forstchen's fictional historical novels based on true history with fictitious characters involved.

As I read Days of Infamy, I found myself appreciating the human characterizations and story telling, while at the same time feeling dissatisfied with some details of the naval engagements. As another critical reviewer has pointed out, Gingrich and Forstchen seem to have warships doing things that ships either can't do or would not have under prevailing tactics and technology of the times. Readers who haven't served aboard warships might not notice those flubs, in an otherwise very engaging story. Certainly I didn't until I did some back checking.

There was also a curious loose end in a conversation between Eleanor and Franklyn Roosevelt, concerning how the President would speak publicly concerning internment of Japanese Americans in the US equivalent of concentration camps. I can only surmise that the next book in the series may provide a definite resolution for this incomplete thread. Likewise still to be resolved will be whether or not the Japanese fleet can reach its supporting tankers in the Marshall Islands, having expended its margin of precious fuel in high-speed maneuvering against the US aircraft carrier Lexington.

Lurking in the background of this series of novels is another and more troubling set of issues. As do many others, these authors base their story lines on a characterization of Pearl Harbor as a surprise attack that caught the US totally unprepared. This premise unfortunately ignores compelling evidence in the historical record, that President Roosevelt and a small cadre of key people around him were well aware of the pending attack, from multiple communications intercepts using naval codes that US cryptographers had broken. Robert S. Stinnett addresses the evidence in "Day of Deceit -- The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor" (The Free Press, NY, 2000). Had Gingrich and Forstchen credited this version of events, they would have been forced to seriously revise even their "alternative history" story. Under Stinnett's interpretation of events, Roosevelt's moral dilemma would have been crushing: from his perspective, the more lives saved in Honolulu and Manila, the greater the chances that an isolationist nation would refuse to bear the burdens of total war against profoundly evil opponents in Europe.

[In fairness to readers, it must also be acknowledged that some reviewers of Stinnett's book have been highly critical or dismissive of his conclusions as well as sources. Still... almost 600 footnotes in documentary sources and comments do seem to build substantial credibility for the book]

Thus my bottom line: as alternate history, this series and this book work well around the prevailing interpretation of Pearl Harbor and early World War II. As story telling it creates moments of high drama, despite the dubious nature of some underlying premises and a few technical flubs. It's worth reading and it will entertain less technically critical readers.

It would be of high interest to hear what Gingrich and Forstchen think of Stinnett's revelations, and I invite their comments.

My title might be a little misleading. The whole point behind this alternative history was only to change a few days, and while implied changes to the whole history of the war, doesn't go beyond the first three days of WWII. I was hoping they'd write a third book, expounding on how the sinking of the Akagi so early on would have effected the Japanese Imperial efforts.Or besides stating that it would take several months to get Pearl Harbor up and running again after the third attack wave, on how they would have to deal with that besides alluring to the fact it'd take several months to get carriers from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Or even how the loss of so many Jap planes so early on would play out over time. Would the Japanese internment camps in the United States still have been as prevalent as during the historical war? Would Yamamato been able to survive the political backlash over losing the flagship, a battleship and another carrier being badly damaged?

But, despite they aren't going to do more beyond that, let us focus on the book itself.

I read the book in two days, the only book that I read faster was The Princess Bride. Despite the fact that it takes place within only a 30 or so hour time-frame, it's a gripping read. After reading the flagrant typos and grammatical errors in Pearl Harbor, I was really concerned about those perhaps spilling over into DOI. But, I was glad when besides the occasional typo every hundred pages or so, there was almost nothing at all.

The books characters are interesting and I do realize they're based off of historical figures, but still, the book brings them to life. One thing that Forisch and Gingrich do well in their books is to describe combat in such a way that it is painted in your mind and you can sympathize with your characters for the loss of people that aren't described more than: "and he died".

A worthy read, but don't expect to go beyond the confines of a few days.

I enjoy Newt Gingrich's non-fiction books, but this is the first of his fiction books that I have read. Not because I had anything against Newt's fiction, but because I don't generally read very much fiction. However, I found this book to be even more enjoyable than I had anticipated. In fact, it makes me want to read the first book in this series, which I had inadvertently missed.

Gingrich and Forstchen take history with a couple of well chosen "what ifs". In this case, if Yamamoto had made multiple attacks on Hawaii and a battle out of the attack on Pearl Harbor instead of a raid. This book opens late on December 7, 1941 in Washington and ends at 10 pm in Washington D.C. on December 11, 1941 with a phone call from Winston Churchill to FDR. The story takes lots of interesting turns, but stays close enough to real history to show a number of interesting photographs in the book from actual historical events. Gingrich and Forstchen call their suppositions "active history" and is not only interesting, but makes for interesting conversation. Everyone likes to play the what if game, but too many do it without much information about the realities behind what they are supposing. These authors take us rapidly from Washington to Hawaii, to both Japanese and US warships, up into various airplanes, and into the lives of soldiers and civilians on both sides.

The action is written very well and the writing keeps the story moving. The characters are well written and the dialogue sounds like it is coming from the mouths of people in real situations in 1941. At least, what I think it would have sounded like in 1941 because I wasn't born until just after the Korean War ended. However, I know how that generation spoke.

I also liked the way the book never creates a favored side that gets unrealistic breaks to win. Both sides make their best moves and make gambles. Some of them pay off and some lead to disaster. We follow some soldiers and ships to their sad deaths and see the men who suffered in these battles on both sides. Of course I am rooting for the United States, but the book doesn't seem to cheat in favor of the U.S. in its narrative. The Japanese are treated with dignity and respect, which seems right nearly 70 years on. The war is not made a pain free game in any way. Everyone it touches suffers, but we see bravery and attention to duty on both sides, but in different ways. Really, the book is quite fascinating in its attention to detail.

While you may not agree with the assumptions the authors have made in creating their fiction of the matched battles between Halsey and Yamamoto, that really is part of the fun. Frankly, I think these books would make a terrific miniseries.

If you like war stories and intelligent and informed what-if scenarios, I am sure you will enjoy this book and its predecessor. I did.

Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI

Anyone interested in World War II in the Pacific around the time of Pearl Harbor should enjoy this book and the speculation of what might have happened had the Japanese lingered long enough to send a third wave attack against Pearl Harbor.

Some critics have postulated that the Japanese may have not had enough fuel to linger too long around Hawaii but they certainly could have launched a third wave attack and escaped undetected.

Other critics have given poor reviews because the equipment and tactics described did not exist at the time of the battles. There is an explanation for this. The authors describe this as "active history" and not "alternate history". Gingrich announces at the beginning (I have the audio book) that they made considered judgments they thought the commanders were likely to make. They obvioulsy borrowed liberally from the later Battles of The Coral Sea, Midway and the Battle Off Samar (for the DD and DE attack) to construct their narrative. As such, they tripped over weapons and tactics used in those later battles that were not available at the time of Pearl Harbor. This does not excuse these errors but rather explains them. I considered the tradeoff reasonable in order that they produce believable battle scenarios around the time of Pearl Harbor.

Other interesting aspects of this book were the political interactions between Japan and the United States and Great Britain in the years preceding the war. I didn't realize that Genda, the architect of Pearl Harbor, was actually in London during the Blitz. Who would ever know how that experience molded his character and imagination toward planning the raid on Pearl Harbor? All very interesting and entertaining.

This is a book to stimulate the imagination and to be enjoyed. Don't take it too seriously and you will like it.

John E. Nevola
Author of The Last Jump - A Novel of World War II

Newt Gingrich and William R. Forstchen have teamed up before; their trilogy of alternate Civil War history was received quite well. In that series, they examined the consequences of a Confederate victory in July 1863, and the outcome of Lee's assault on Washington, D.C. Before that, in the ill-fated 1945, they showed us a world where the Third Reich dominates Europe and threatens the United States.

This current series started with Pearl Harbor; in fact, if you have not read that book, this book, though entertaining, won't make as much sense. Pearl Harbor establishes the "point of divergence" in this alternate history - Yamamoto himself is present during the attack on Pearl Harbor, and a third assault is launched against the island, causing more material damage and generating more chaos than it did in "real life." Days of Infamy shows what happens as a result of that divergence.

The United States Navy is reeling after the attack in Hawaii, but the hunt for the Japanese fleet is on. Of course, Yamamoto is searching for the American carriers, and has a carefully laid trap set for them. The American carrier groups are split, and are forced to observe strict radio silence to prevent the Japanese fleet from finding them. It's a complex naval chess game, played out in the Pacific Ocean, with real casualties. The inexperience of the American troops is highlighted, as many of the pilots flying into combat have only recently graduated from flight school. Many don't make it to their second mission, falling prey to the superior Japanese planes and pilots.

The thing I appreciate most about this book is how believable it is. As with their Civil War series, Gingrich and Forstchen have crafted a narrative that sounds like it really happened. The benefit of alternate histories is their ability to make us think about how important one minor event can be to the outcome of a battle, a war, and more. As bad as the attack on Pearl Harbor was, it could have been much worse, and the aftermath could have been vastly different from what we read in the history books.

The characters in the Days of Infamy are very true to life, though there's not much development in the narrative. Of course, the events of the book take place between 7:45 PM on December 7 and 10:00 AM on December 11, so there's not a lot of time for characters to develop and change. But Gingrich and Forstchen have packed a lot into 3 1/2 days. The pacing of the book can sometimes leave you breathless, and more than once I found myself reading "just one more page" after I'd just finished two chapters. This is a great beach read for people who don't always read beach books.

Days of Infamy is an excellent followup to the first book in this series. While not quite as good as the first one, which covered ten years leading up to Pearl Harbor, this one gives us tense and exciting drama that covers a two day period. Other authors have tried to extrapolate what would have happened if that third wave would have come in to bomb our oil supplies. However none have been quite as detailed as this. Some may consider it two detailed as it covers a fantastic duel between our battleships and the Japanese battleships. I can't believe this is only a trilogy as there are so many great subplots to be explored.

I am surprised that any reviewer considered Turtledove's coverage of this period to be superior. Compared to Gingrich and Forstchen he is a hack, though he once was top of the line. One example is how he had Japanese who had never encouuntered Western civilization talking like Americans, slang expressions and all. I can believe the Japanese people in this Gingrich/Fortschen novel. My Japanese friends feel the same way.

It must be noted that scholars have pointed out that a third wave attack would have been the worst thing Japan could have done, for themselves. This is hinted at in Days of Infamy. Had we been delayed in our fighting Japan by even a year, due to production needs and Germany being our priority, we would have had many more than three atomic bombs. Our desire for revenge, against an enemy empire so over extended, would have been a human disater for Japan. Japan would have been turned into a wasteland and would be strictly third world today.

I thought the first book in this series, Pearl Harbor, was ok. As I don't have the command of history that Messrs. Gingrich and Forstchen have, I would like to have seen an appendix, or even a couple paragraphs at the beginning that gave the overview of what was real and what was alternative history. Was it all real (artistic license notwithstanding) diverging from history at the 3rd wave attack? Was it all fabrication? I didn't know, and that bothered me while reading.

I didn't suffer this uncertainty in Days of Infamy as the entire story line comes from the imagination of the authors. The battle sequences were very good, the decisions taken by the leaders seemed realistic, they captured what I can only imagine (fortunately) to be the grit, terror, blood and guts of combat. As a reader I really empathized with the feelings - hatred, fear, apathy, uncertainty, confidence (and lack of), etc. - portrayed in the characterizations.

It will be interesting to see how the authors play WWII out. I plan to follow this series all the way through.

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, I was one month short of four years. In all the years since, I was never aware of the severity of the attack; nor was I aware of the tremendous losses America suffered in the few days immediately following December 7th. It seems that history focused on the initial attack which was crippling in itself. The sea and air battles that took place in the days immediately following December 7th, with almost complete loss of communication with the forces in Hawaii, further crippled our air and sea worthiness. This book depicts in detail the valor and courage of American hero's in those dastardly days.

Gingrich and Forstchen are the maestros of `what if' military history. The second of their alternative histories about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Days of Infamy is a winner. Pearl Harbor was the stage setter. In that earlier book Yamamoto assumes direct control of the six carriers to attack Pearl and as expected, the Americans are unprepared. Where things got interesting was when the authors played `what if'? What if Yamamoto had ordered a third strike that destroys the fuel supplies for the American fleet and the dry docks that allow for major ship repairs?

However, Days of Infamy steps up the pace even further and throws some interesting curve balls. What if he uses his battleships as bait for the American carriers lurking somewhere near Oahu? Could the American carriers, outnumbered 6 to 2, survive much less triumph against the better equipped and better trained Japanese?

Gingrich and Forstchen do an excellent job of capturing the mood of the times--prejudice against Japanese-Americans, panic, not only in Honolulu but also in Washington.

Yamamoto, the chess player, and Halsey, the barroom brawler are vividly portrayed. The most memorable and complex characters, however, are Commander James Watson, torn between two cultures he loves, and fighter pilot David Dellacroce, who becomes America's first ace while tortured by the loss of all of his comrades. All in all an enjoyable, thought provoking read.

Ken Hite is the author of a Day at the Beach June 6, 1944

Alternative history opens an infinite number of possibilities. Having read several nonfiction books dealing with Pearl Harbor and the Pacific war, I found DAYS OF INFAMY interesting and insightful. Many have speculated about why there was not third attack and what would have happened it there had been. Gingrich and Forstchen provide one answer--or the beginning of one possible answer.

Pear Harbor's fuel storage tanks and the big dry dock survived the real attack, as did the three aircraft carries which were not in the area when the Japanese attacked. The rational presented by the authors as to why there was no invasion and occupation of the Hawaiian Islands is logical.

Some of the battle scenes resemble battles fought later in the war. This added realism by creating fictional battles that closely tracked real one.

I very much enjoyed the book, but for historians, they missed a good opportunity.

Hawaii had Coastal Artillery which was in place prior to Dec 7, 1941. Oahu was not totally defenceless against naval attack. However no mention was made of this in the book, so one presumes incorrectly, that there was no coastal artillery. Where in fact there were several coastal artillery batteries on Oahu. To me this shows a lack of proper research on the island defenses on Dec 7, 1941. It would have been interesting if the book included the coastal artillery, as this would have been one of the few opportunities to utilize coastal artillery in a ship vs shore artillery duel.

Having read the authors' earlier "Pearl Harbor", this follow on novel was eagerly awaited and did not disappoint. It was a very quick read because it was a story well-told that was hard to put down. The story is alternate history, exploring the what if scenarios around the earliest days of World War II in the Pacific. The authors successfully stay within the bounds of the plausible, guiding the reader through an alternate history that might have really happened but for providence and the choices of individuals.

About four days of action are packed into the 350 pages of the hardcover book. American and Japanese naval fleets battle earlier than what really happened at Coral Sea and Midway, with one interesting clash that is the 1941 version of the Battle off Samar.

This book contains less political and social commentary than "Pearl Harbor" but does touch on the issue of internment of those of Japanese descent, offering a fair discussion and different outcome without surrendering to a contemporary politically correct preachiness.

One frustration in reading this book is the occasional, but too often, errors in describing equipment, usually aircraft, involved in the story. Military history buffs will be left wondering how these errors got past editors and especially some of the military personnel who are mentioned in the Acknowlegements. The errors are an unnecessary and avoidable distraction from an otherwise great vision of what might have been.

A Great Read and a Fascinating "What If?"
Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen have written a compelling story of what might have happened in the four days following the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor if strategy and events had been a little different. This is the first work of fiction written by Newt Gingrich that I have read but it certainly will not be the last.
The story is told from multiple perspectives - Admiral Halsey, Admiral Yamamoto, President Roosevelt and, most interestingly, a fictional Nay Commander - James Watson. The characters and the plot are exceedingly well-developed. From this former Marine's perspective, the descriptions of naval combat are believable and quite realistic. You can almost smell the gun powder and feel the concussions.
Granted, part of this story is a work of fiction but it is quite believable and very thought-provoking. There are lessons to be learned - not only about WW II in the Pacific but warfare in general. It occurs to me that this story could very well be used in places like Annapolis, the Army's Command and General Staff College and Sandhurst to create the background for an interesting war game simulation to teach military strategy.
I strongly recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in WW II and military strategy - it really is a great read.

"Days of Infamy" reads well. If you like aerial and naval battle action with lots of descriptive blood and guts, this book is for you. On the other hand, if you are hoping to learn something about the facts, the strategies and the personalities of the war, this is not the place.

I thoroughly enjoyed "Pearl Harbor" by these authors. Although it too was alternative history, it seemed to portray the conditions, the rationale and the events leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor quite well. My only real complaint with it was that the authors never explained where the facts ended and the fiction began.

No problem with this one. It is almost pure fiction. The only takeaways from this book are that war IS hell, that Halsey and Yamomoto were gamblers and there was a backlash against Japanese Americans. Oh yes, and that Churchill and Roosevelt talked to each other and Roosevelt made an inspiring speach to the nation.

While I understand that Gingrich and Forstchen are writing alternative history, I still think it would be extremely helpful if they would provide either a foreword, footnotes or an appendix to help the reader reconcile the fiction vs the facts. Additionally, both "Pearl Harbor" and this book contain numerous photos that would be far more interesting if some explanation were provided. A couple of maps would also be useful to help the reader follow the action.

All in all, this is an entertaining read that misses a golden opportunity to educate the reader about much of anything. That was disappointing.

Great historical fiction ... well researched ... well written ... lots of pages but well worth the read. It was hard for me to put this book down and I don't even like fiction. The truth is, Newt Gingrich puts more truth into his books than imagination. I may just have to read them all.

That's the same review I gave to "Valley Forge" and I mean it for both. One can get a history lesson in an easy, digestible form by reading these books.

I enjoyed this book tremendously. I stayed up late and read half of it the first night before I went to bed.

Still, I experienced a slight irritation from one specific scene.

At one point a pair of Japanese battleships and a few escorts bombard Pearl Harbor and various other locations.

The only resistence mentioned is the 'innacurate fire' which comes from Fort Shafter.

Fort Kamehameha is where the guns closest to Fort Shafter were located. The most important being two batteries of (four total) twelve-inch coast defence guns.

On the other side of the entrance to Pearl Harbor was Fort Weaver, and further inland near Shoffield Barracks was Fort Barrette, each contaning a battery of two sixteen-inch guns.

A little east was Fort DeRussy, (Waikiki Beach,) with a battery of two fourteen-inch guns, and a bit further east was Diamond Head Crater/Fort Ruger, with two heavily protected batteries of twelve-inch mortars. (12 weapons total.)

Fort Kamehameha would perhaps be worst off in the scenario Newt presented, however there is no compeling reason why all these other heavy gun and mortar batteries could not have taken the bombarding Japanese fleet under fire. The mortar batteries especially would have been quite effective, (due to plunging fire against more lightly armored decks,) as well as their fire-control stations located away from the batteries themselves. Fort DeRussy and Fort Ruger in particular had their fire-control located in protected bunkers high on the lip of Diamond-Head crater, and should have easily seen the Japanese ships, even at night, only five miles out at sea.

Nit-picking perhaps, but such things partially spoiled what was otherwise an enjoyable read for me.

This is not one of my favorite authors. His first novel was more like a comic book than a work of Alternate History but my brother disagrees with me in regards to this fellow's work. My brother is something of a fan of his and loaned me his copy of this novel and his preceeding work Pearl Harbor. And I must confess these works are very good. A bit dry for my tastes in literature and rather loaded with minor errors of fact but otherwise well written and very well thought out though I must confess his statements in regards to American racism a bit pronounced to get friendly reviews from critics since the Japanese are hardly saints on this issue as Koreans and members of the Japanese Burukimin untouchable caste and others can attest.

A good though somewhat dull read.

Just as with the Civil War trilogy, the authors make a number of mistakes and assumptions that reduce the books from "historical" fiction to plain "fiction". The biggest problem is in the area of logistics. Japan had insufficient fleet oilers to sustain the Carrier Air Fleet in the Hawaii area for three days much less a week. Both IJN Soryu and Hiryu had to carry supplemental fuel supplies in drums to get the radius of action needed to reach the strike point off Hawaii, and this was with at sea replenishment. Just as important, the IJN carriers carried sufficient ordnance for three anti-shipping "deck load" strikes and one to two land attacks. After that, they would be impotent. At sea replenishment of heavy ammunition was a problem only the USN solved, and then only by the time of the Okinawa operation in 1945. Until that point, replenishment of aerial torpedoes and bombs would have required a time-consuming transfer from an ammunition ship in a secure anchorage. The same applies to aviation gas for the planes. The IJN carriers carried enough AVGAS for around five sorties per aircraft. Once the AVGAS was gone, they would have to refuel from a gasoline tanker. The IJN did not have the capability at that time to conduct at sea replenishment of AVGAS. The IJN could not logistically sustain continuous operations at the distance from its bases that Hawaii represented. A raid was all they could execute and a raid is what they did. The most that can be argued about the operation was whether it was needed and if so, whether the third strike against Pearl Harbor's logistical infratsructure should have been attempted.
There are also a number of historical errors that are irritating. The USN did not have a 40mm AA mount until May 1942 and the first "quad" was aboard USS Wasp from Aug 42. At the time of Pearl Harbor, both USS Enterprise and Lexington were armed with 1.1" Mk.1 and .50 M2 AA weapons, the 1.1" in quad mounts and the .50 on single pedastal mounts. Most of the heavy cruisers escorting the carriers still had the interim 3" AA guns and both they and the destroyers had .50 AA machineguns. Also, the standard fleet submarine torpedo was the Mk.14, not the Mk.12, which was the destroyer torpedo in service before the Mk.15. Then VF-2, USS Lexington's fighter squadron, made up of enlisted pilots, was flying the F2A-3 Buffalo, not the F4F-3 Wildcat at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack.

The "real" alternate history should be one based on Yamamoto failing to "blackmail" the NGS and IHQ into supporting his raid, seen by many as an unnecessary diversion of resources from the main efforts in the Southern Resource Area (SEA). The Japanese carriers support the IJN's operations around the Philippines, against Singapore and in the Dutch East Indies. They then move to the Marianas to support the attritional phase of the IJN's "Decisive Battle" plan for destroying the USN. MacArthur has a more realistic understanding of the limits of the Philippine Army and his fighters aren't caught on the ground, so he conducts a fighting retreat back to Bataan and forces the Japanese to commit more forces and delays their time table. In the meantime, pressure builds on Washington over relieving the Philippines, since the decision had been made in the early '30s that the Philippines couldn't be held and that the USN would conduct a cautious advance across the Mandate while building strength for the "Decisive Battle" and the reconquest of the Philippines two years later, a decision enshrined in the "Rainbow 5" plan.

Admiral Yamamoto orders Imperial Japanese Naval Air Forces to attack the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Three waves of bombings destroy much of the American fleet and leave the island in chaos. He believes the Americans reeling from the assault will sue for peace.

However, Yamamoto is stunned when he finds out his own government betrayed his confidence in them. He warned the Foreign Ministry to openly declare war before he ordered the attacks because he understands the American mindset having lived there. He was promised and set his date and time from the first wave accordingly. Instead he knows the Americans will not negotiate a settlement before the hostilities as they perceive this as a sneak attack. They will go all out in an acrimonious avenging extended war in the Pacific that Japan cannot win if it stretches too long. Yamamoto knows his majesty's only hope for victory is an all out ruthless assault on the American military throughout the Pacific and he knows his side may not survive the retaliation and counter attacks. Admiral Halsey leads the American response.

The concept is excellent as Yamamoto concludes the narrow-minded idiot politicians back in Tokyo did not do him or the country any favors when they failed to simply formally inform FDR of the war declaration as he knows the sleeping giant has been awakened into an angry snarling tiger. The execution by Newt Gingrich and William R. Forstchen is superb as the audience will believe the sequel to Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December 8th, 1941 is plausible. What if fans will appreciate this fast-paced war in the Pacific alternate history as the military and political action never slows over a few days of infamy in December 1941.

Harriet Klausner

Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen have done another outstanding "what if" history book on the pacific war during WWII. I found the book to be thought provoking with good historical background. It makes one realize that war is a matter of circumstance and chance as much as planning and execution. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in history and especially those interested in the Pearl Harbor actions during WWII.

Edward N Heinz, WWII HIstorian

Great read like there other alterative history books. Though I cannot tell why they keep changing the author's names. Harry turtledove and Newt Gingrich/William R. Forstchen seem to be to different authors but many of there books are identical(example 1943 and worldwar are the same book but released with two different sets of author credit. First came 1943 by Newt Gingrich/William R. Forstchen then about four months later worldwar by harry turtledove with the only change being the authors credit.) anyway this book is thought provoking about what if the Japanese had followed with a third strike.

All I can say is WOW. Exceptionally well written. As a person who HATES to read, I cannot wait for the next one. Today we use the term "HERO" way too often. The people of America will better understand the true meaning of "HERO" when they read both Pearl Harbor and Days Of Infamy. To all the military men and women from the past, present, and future, I thank you. Two words that seem so inadequate, but what else can I say? You're all heroes in my book!!!

The first book in this series, Pearl Harbor, was just the opening act in a days long horror that will set the Pacific ablaze as two of World War II's greatest commanders, Yamamoto and Bull Halsey, clash in the greatest naval battle never to have happened. It is the narrative genius of Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen that makes one think that the battle in Days of Infamy must have happened.

Days of Infamy is also a meditation on one of the essential truths of war. Whatever the issues, whatever the cause, whatever the failure that led up to it, the one thing that is true of every war, especially World War Two, is that young men die decades before their time. There is plenty of such death in Days of Infamy, much of it heartbreaking.

In Days of Infamy young pilots take off from the pitching deck of a carrier with the dawn, knowing that very likely they will not live to see the dusk. Some face that prospect with resolution, some with terror.

Even more horrendous than the terror of battle thousands of feet over the Pacific, taking minutes or even seconds to resolve, is the horror of the aftermath. Days of Infamy tells about burning ships, taking on water, and crews desperately trying to keep them afloat and operational, or at least moving toward some form of refuge. Death by fire or death by water is the fate of too many long after the din of battle stills.

In Days of Infamy Gingrich and Forstchen have done it again, as they did with their epic Gettysburg trilogy, and have captured what war is like, in all of its horror and glory, by showing the reader events in another World War Two that never happened, but might have.

I've been enjoying alternate history for years. Being a Civil War buff, I particularly enjoyed their Gettysburg series. One of the things I like best about alternate history is that it stimulates me to brush up on the actual events and compare. Days of Infamy is a logical extrapolation of events that were set up in the first book. In addition, the story is delivered with compassion, exciting action, and just plain good story telling. As always, Forstchen's battle scenes are rivetting. I'm just bummed that I have to wait for the finale.

Really good action and hard to stop listening to. I listened to the Audible version of this. Excellent book to listen to. As a history buff I thought it was really done well and true to history. Yamamoto would have been much more aggresive. Halsey well is Halsey... Great job Gingrich and Forstchen, is there another coming?

An interesting twist inspired by a real piece of history, Days of Infamy is a brilliant story that is hard to put down once you start. I have high standards in my reading recommendations, and this is a book that is worthy of my precious time. It will stir your imagination and your emotions, and will give you a keen appreciation of why there is a US Navy, and why there will always be a USS Enterprise. Jim Luisi, Colts Neck, NJ

Racism against Japanese and Blacks and Jews was mentioned too many times. Almost every book I read, the author seems to want to bring up racism and discrimination, and most of the authors don't know what they are talking about. They want to tell the reader that they are not racists. I know I am tired of hearing about it all the time everywhere. And, it was bad back then, back in the forties..........

A captivating novel that quickly picked up its pace.A fine sequel in the alternative Pacific war story of WWII. The insight of the Japanese commander Yamamoto and his flight officer Fuchida is riveting. The bravery of the American pilots going against the superior Zeroes is awe inspiring. The citizens of Hawaiis reactions to the attack is as shameful as it is heroic. An excellent read that you wont want to put down. Get your copy today!

A fast moving, hard hitting, action-packed exciting read that overloads the reader's emotions! What an excellent account of events that could very well have happened following the attack on Pearl Harbor. The reality and believability factors are so high that one would swear it was written based on the personal accounts of those who lived through the action! Fascinating, compelling and gripping throughout.......this is the book of all books that have been written based on World War II.

Great book that was gripping and fascinating. The story had enough action to keep you hooked, yet a deep enough plot to make you care about what happened to the characters. Pearl Harbor & Days of Infamy were great books and a must read for anyone remotely interested in WW II or Pearl Harbor.

Days of Infamy was everything I expected it to be a thrilling and realistic account of what could have happened after the attack on Pearl Harbor. It was a book I could not put down and did not want it to finish, but if you are going to read this book I must recommend that you read Pearl Harbor first which was just as good if not better.

This alternative account puts you on the edge of your seat. I could not put it down and finished it in 2 days. I even blew-off hanging out with friends until I finished it. My only question is, when is part 3 coming out?

I thoroughly enjoyed Pearl Harbor but this book was a major disappointment. If you enjoy detailed descriptions of battles at sea, then you might enjoy this book, otherwise there's not much of a story here. Seems the authors ran out of ideas after the first book.

There are so many points of view that continuity is an issue in segments of this book, particularly the last half where the story is contradictory in several places. I enjoyed it, but my recommendation is tempered by a book with an abundance of details and weak plot threads.

There are so many points of view that continuity is an issue in segments of this book, particularly the last half where the story is contradictory in several places. I enjoyed it, but my recommendation is tempered by a book with an abundance of details and weak plot threads.

I actually made it through the first chapter before dumping it. I have never read such ridiculous tripe before. In addition to not being technically accurate, the authors besmirched the actual people involved. If these two people wanted to make a "what if" book then utilize fictional people as characters in the book as well as fictional ships. After all, the situations are fictional and have no relevancy to actual events. The book can only be rated a "stinker".

We know no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.

And no one every went broke underestimating Mr. Gingrich's good taste.

But it's a new low, even for him - and that is saying quite a bit about a man who divorced his wife when she had cancer, who hounded the President of the United States for having an affair while he was having an affair, who insisted on taking over the bigger House office space because he'd been elected Speaker (although the smaller office was fine for the folks who'd been Speaker for the past 40 years, including Sam Rayburn) - to use the anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack to attempt to sell books.

This is LOW:

[...]

More interesting than yet another book that idolizes the U.S. empire, I'd like to see a book that speculates what Hawaii would be like if the U.S. hadn't colonized it Islands in Captivity: The International Tribunal on the Rights of Indigenous Hawaiians.
Books like this, their approach and premises, serve to blind U.S. citizens to the infamy of their own acts of aggression. Our crimes have been much worse than the attack on Pearl Harbor, an attack on a naval base. We went after civilians White Light/Black Rain: The Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
We've all been indoctrinated to believe that the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary, despite the fact that many U.S. military leaders felt otherwise. For instance, Dwight Eisenhower said, "During his (Secretary of War Henry Stimson) recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings. First on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary; and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
"Days of Infamy" will be interesting for those who "get off on warfare" (to quote McCain's ally, the "reverend" Rod Parsley). It's another expression of our ugly habit of romanticizing war that this society needs to break Beyond the Weapons of Our Fathers. Instead of fantasizing alternative war scenarios, let's imagine justice for the indigenous people of Hawaii, and sorrow for turning Japan into an inferno beyond Dante's worst nightmare.
American Experience: Hawaii's Last Queen
The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb
Howard Zinn on War
Why We Fight

Here's what will happen. Yamamoto will be sidelined{Guderian) and the replacement will waste the japanese advantage, which should have been greater. I have stated this over and over authors are afraid to let the axis win. Try the library for this side line of alternate history.