The administrator ran the voter, the voter needs to follow instructions, ballots on time, the election administrator needs to do his or her job, you dont think about it when the race isnt close or if the election isnt in the news, once it is all of a sudden all the e election mechanics take center stage but one of the benefits is it built momentum and it gave the secretary of state a rare opportunity to make changes to reelection law. The mandate of the law is to preserve history, the state archives, the state library, we document oral history and biography is of washingtonians who have contributed to our history in some way. Sam can tell you i know he was stopped on the streets all the time, people would come up to him and say you need to write this down and thinking about it, we do have an obligation to document and as i say the big lessons our transparency, every vote does count. If anybody doubts that you can point to the 2004 governors rays in washington and say look. We honored our mandate, felt an obligation these were circumstances that were so rare that to be able to talk about the Lessons Learned and how we handle that and what we would do right, what we would change would be invaluable to the Election Administrators in the future. Of voting systems and elections will involve change but timeless lessons will remain. For more information on booktvs recent trip to olympia, washington and many other cities visited by our local content vehicles go to cspan. Org localcontent. Booktv is on facebook and twitter. Like and follow us for book industry news, booktvs schedule updates, behindthescenes looks and author events and to interact with authors during Live Television programming. Here are a few of booktvs posts from this past week. Earlier this week political activist pete seeger died at 94. On tuesday we posted a link to a 2001 program on the late folksinger. Booktv tweeted a New York Times article about simon and schusters plans to publish a book by former president jimmy carter on womens rights and on facebook we posted a portion of our recent interview with Georgetown University law centers paul butler. If you listen to hiphop you are reminded that there are 2. 5 billion people locked up. You can watch all the reality shows about real housewives and all these movies about vampires and how thats and you will never know the we lock up more people in the United States than any country in the history of the world. You can watch this interview at booktv. Org. Week wheated an article from Library Journal about 8234, recently introduced maryland bill on ebook pricing and libraries and on facebook we added some pictures to our booktv behindthescenes. Follow us on twitter at booktv, like us on facebook, facebook. Com booktv for more news about the world of publishing and what is happening on booktv. Next, eri hotta examines the attack on pearl harbor and entry into world war ii from the japanese perspective. This is about an hour. Thank you for coming. It is always a somewhat artificial situation of two people who know each other well, husband and wife fall into that category and to do an interview in public like this, why i asked questions i could ask over the breakfast table and done the other hand one doesnt normally discuss Japanese Naval strategy in 1941 over the breakfast table. So it is as good an opportunity as any to discuss this little bit further and one of the things i find most interesting about the book and revealing for many readers in this country is it tackles certain myths about pearl harbor, one of the myths which was of course very much encouraged in the postwar period not only by the japanese themselves but by the American Administration is japan had been hijacked by the militarists, by the military and civilians were not to blame for what happened. It was a kind of militarist coup and the japanese people and the emperor himself were sort of do by the militarists in to embarking on this reckless adventure. What would you say to that particular myth . It was a very easy and convenient myth because it disengage quite a few of the people who were actually responsible in reality and of course for the japanese nation as well to think that the war could have been averted was too painful question asked i think. And it was a self perpetuating myth that the japanese themselves took very easily to after the war having lost so much. In your book you describe why is it is wrong to think of it in terms of civilians being duped because some of the civilian politicians, not least the Prime Minister for much of the time was actually to a barge extent responsible for what happened even though he saw that it would lead to a disaster. Defect the decision making, responsibility was shared between civilians and the military is hard to imagine because people take for granted the military took over but it does not the case, the leaders 70 times in the runup to the war and discussed the alternatives and different steps to be taken and conferences were called liaison conferences and that was not for anything that was called because its function was civilian and military strategies and policies and create a sort of a unified voice so civilian politicians cant say they didnt have any say because they did have a say in those conferences. Why did they go along with it . It happened over the course of a period in which they gradually deluded themselves into thinking we can say this much but some kind of diplomatic breakthrough will happen and it will militaristic steps they were taking and when all this was going on the military leaders had to put up a front to preserve their faith and that these young officers who were strategizing and thinking about expanding their sphere of influence and there was also rivalry, the navy and the army were always fighting with each other for a bigger budget. The navy and army air very much divided into different sympathies so you cant really talk about the military voice as monolithic. That is another myth. Takes me to another myth which is there was tremendous consensus. On the one hand on the surface there is consensus but actually behind the scenes there was tremendous rivalry and different factions. Trying to thing, it escapes me, there is a japanese expression for the top guys being driven by the middle ranking people who are more radical. Perhaps you could explain. The exact translation would be Something Like retainers, does that make sense . The lord has complete authority in principle but is weak and driven into a more radical position by hot heads in the middle ranks. It justifies asking the power by indicating leaders as ineffective basically. So the young officers throughout the 30s especially in the beginning of 1930s up to february of the 1936, were driven by this desire to renovate the japanese policy and also strengthen the imperial system and so on and everything was done in the name of influencing that put japan under tremendous economic strain and economic considerations cannot be separated in this period like any other part of the worlds sole there were hot blooded officers and soldiers who were ready to mobilize, or perceived by the leaders, so fear about what could happen to them as well. Again, rather destroys another myth of japan as a very authoritarian society which on the one hand has some truth about on the other hand the authorities were often not really in control. You mentioned the 1936 coup which may not be clear to everybody. In 1936, a number of middle ranking officers often from the northeast, country boy is in the northeast, particularly badly hit by the depression and that is where people are often really hungry and the daughters are sold into prostitution and that kind of thing and the military officers at the time, they were not unique in the world, believed people responsible for this place where the capitalists, bankers, the elite, the establishment and so on, they were radicals of the right and want to stage a coup to put the emperor, to make the emperor into a kind of dictator which he wasnt and to set up a fascist state, it was the emperor in the center and even though a lot of people, admirals and generals and so on were sympathetic to the names of these young hotheads and admired their, quote, sincerity and salon, for the more conservative members of the establishment including the imperial household, they went too far. They didnt disagree with the aims necessarily but didnt like the means so this was a clear case of young people in the middle ranks driving people in authority into positions they may not have wanted to be. Stuff that the error saw affected by the experience of the failed coup which nearly toppled him is important because that affected his passive and this and perhaps diffidence in putting his foot down in 1941 and he talks about it after the war, he tried to veto the decision he might be the kind that was tried in 1936, didnt say anything. Also speaks for the fact that it was possible, in the constitution, not as clear as he claims. If they could have made a case, would have replaced much more radical. Popular. What about the other miffed, the japanese the myth that the japanese people are duped by the ministry, the standard mainstream, the right wing nationalists which is still here in japan, that japan was trapped, was forced into attacking pearl harbor because they were surrounded by western colonial powers, america, britain, china and the netherlands, japan has a perfect right to defend its interests in east asia and that includes china and sell lawn and surrounded by western powers that didnt want japan to have its moments in the sun so they were driven by economic boycotts and that kind of thing. We could also talk about that, the americans, the americans forced their hand. The encirclement from a classic explanation for many of the regions, germany and world war i, if that was very much on the japanese mind as well. The fact that low wartime government may use of that narrative told you a speech on the day of the pearl harbor attack that japan was reluctantly Prime Minister tojo, japan into the war reluctantly despite the nations past efforts at trying to achieve peace, the concept that the japanese were taken by but in this end and in effect abused, was quite useful at the time as well and useful to make some cells believe they were fighting for the right cause too. That narrative was quite strong and who would want to die for the wrong cause . You want to believe that, if you are an ordinary citizen without much access to real information about china or japanese imperialism i dont think is hard to imagine how appealing that narrative might have been. It had a kernel of truth too. Is true that unlike nazi germany japan was fighting a war against other imperial powers. George kennan, one person who criticized the u. S. Diplomacy in retrospect said they should have recognized japanese interests more than they did. The whole problem stemmed from the fact that since the middle of the Nineteenth Century when japan was forcefully opened up by american gunships the japanese saw their only chance to survive as an independent nation, not be colonized like western powers. At this late in the game, but one can sort of understand why it was felt that they have their right and european empires. I can understand it is understandable but that is not excused either in the fact that they had a relative a period of relative peace and democratic experiment in the 1920s and fashion to go international in the league of nations which japanese more than anybody else took seriously it is a shame that you had to go down that way. Understanding the broader frame of mind is useful to look at colonialism and imperialism and also not triggering mediumterm causes of war that causes for the war had more to do with the japanese ambitions in east asia, rivalry for control of china with competing against the United States as well. The idea that the fact that they had been lucky in their past wars probably affected their military mindset that perhaps this reckless war could be somehow won. It was applauded by the western powers. Teddy roosevelt when the japanese beat the russians in 1905, talks about the japanese, so did the british and the attack on the russian fleet could be seen as it was the real thing but it was the kind of pearl harbor at that time. The fact the surprise attack as well, the soviets dont make as much of a myth about the surprise, the freak nature, stills nature of the attack, has to do with the fact, the so dramatic and the fact that the america was attacked on its soil even though it was a heavily japanese populated island ironically, just became part of the american psyche and collective historical narrative and became a symbol and the parted from it, real significant. Lets play in to american myths, didnt necessarily condone the attack on pearl harbor, he certainly didnt. His analysis is one of the reasons the americans were so shocked by this event and outrage, the idea of infamy and so on, that it played into these years in so many western movies of the treacherous indians who are always attacking without warning from nowhere, the brave pioneers and suddenly these redskins screeching war cries. In his analysis, all war without mercy, one explanation why it is still such a strong myth in america, exactly that, this treacherous attack. Wasnt meant to be treacherous or was it a screwup . There is a huge debate about who is responsible for the delay in determining diplomacy to the white house but the fact that delayed documents didnt specify that they were not a declaration of war really so you cant really argue, the treacherous nature, had not been affected any way in roosevelts mind. The fact that he had this rhetorical genius and the mobilize the nation, the enormity, something to be said about comparison to indians or native americans. In movies. We knew our breakfast. It is the thought of it speaks for the disproportionate asymmetrical nature of the warfare being fought and that is why after 9 11 it was so compelling and tempting for people to use that analogy, the attack being much like pearl harbor. And underresources power could overtake a giant however momentarily. To carry on slightly from what we are talking about before, another analysis, the japanese intellectual who is no longer with a started as a communist and ended up all truck right wing nationalists, his phrase was the 100 year war, pearl harbor was part of a war that started in the 1860s when japan was opened up by Commodore Perry with his gun ships and jeffersons, even though there were periods of peace, after since japan, western dominance. Is there some truth to that. If you look at the whole history in terms of cultural civilization, it is very tempting to explain the political events that took place in the meantime and reduce everything to these world views almost. These things affect ones thinking, and the furniture of mind, and the racism. And describe individual beliefs and how people react to certain situations differently or 7 leaders might have held on to certain beliefs more strongly than others. Just doesnt explain the whole picture sufficiently. I can see how it could be tempting to. My role would be the right wing japanese nationalist. So why did they do it . What did a thing, what was the hope . The mastermind of the attack on pearl harbor, yamamoto a cool was targeted and in the Japanese Embassy in washington, new the west very well, very sophisticated man who warned the government on several occasions that it was a very reckless thing to do but he did it nonetheless. Was a gambling man and was probably vain enough to think he was the man to do it if anyone but what did they hope to get out of it . In the end it was a gamble. By this time they felt they had been cornered into this situation they justified it in terms of the slim possibility that something diplomatic could be worked out after inflecting a great deal of damage on the Pacific Fleet on the United States, that even though the war was being declared in the name of the failure of diplomacy they expected the approach to be a diplomatic solution so japan itself didnt have any exit plan. Fact that the russo japanese war, japan also didnt have an exit plan theyre either and it was because of Theodore Roosevelts intervention and peacemaking efforts that japan just got away, it wasnt a straight forward almost went bankrupt, were bailed out by a baker in new york, jake shift who escaped antisemitic areas in russia so was not a friend of the russians. White russian officers taken prisoner by the japanese introduced the japanese to the protocol of many put 2 plus 2 together, jacob schiff, we have to keep the jews on our side at the conclusion which is why the japanese during world war ii reviewed to hand over the jews to the nazis when they requested it from shanghai. We are getting close to questioned time. The last question perhaps, i think i am right in saying in America Pearl harbor has become a sort of mystical location which is used over and over at least after 9 11 office and so on. In japan when people think of world war ii pearl harbor is not the first thing that comes to mind. Atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki would be the first things that come to mind but bombings of every major city tends to get forgotten or not discussed. And that sort of experience dies hard. But then it has been almost 70 years since the end of the war, that sort of collective experience is becoming thinner and thinner. I cant really say even that they have a strong attachment to any of the bombings including a bombings exit they get taught in school more effectively than they are taught about there may be another reason we havent discussed, why sell many japanese intellectuals, people who are not fascists or militarists applauded the attack on pearl harbor in december of 1941 partly because it came as an enormous relief. They had been fighting china even though the official propaganda was japan was liberating asia they had been fighting china and getting deeper in this quagmire. Many people felt embarrassed about it and even now, probably more people if they think about world war ii, know more about the atrocities committed against the chinese than they know about pearl harbor. A lot of intellectuals in 1941 felt regaining at last giving the west and bloody nose, fighting a proper enemy. This is the war we should have been fighting to begin with and not our fellow asians. A few of them had studied and firsthand experience in that. That is the inferiority complex was much deeper than others. Not against small issues. It is of bit like what is his name . Daniel ortega w