In this instance, my frame of interest stops just before Pearl Harbor, and is almost exclusively directed at the Japanese side of the equation beforehand; so Infamy is only there to provide another angle on the Japanese lurch toward war. It may ultimately prove to contain nothing directly useful, in which case it's only in the bibliography as background (much like I expect Weinberg and Wilson to be). Right now, it looks like Hotta and Rising Sun are going to provide the bulk of the secondary-source citations (the heavy lifting will be done by the one English-language primary source I was able to find, the Liaison Conference transcripts published as Japan's Decision for War).

Amusingly, that little John Keegan book—which is essentially a pocket historiography of what Keegan, not yet Sir John, considered the Current Scholarship on the entire war as of 1995—contains a sublimely backhanded dismissal, not just of Infamy but of the entirety of Pearl Harbor history written to that date, to wit:

Keegan or his editor could perhaps have troubled to spell the late Gordon W. Prange's name right, but that aside, I love it when historians beef with each other. They go at it like rappers sometimes. If you really want a (deeply nerdy historiographical) laugh, dig up the Spring 1979 issue of the journal History Workshop and read Tony Judt's "A Clown in Regal Purple", which opens with a sententious passage asserting that Something Is Wrong With Social History, even though (he acknowledged) it was the New Hotness in historianing at the time—then asks rhetorically, "What, then, is wrong?" and proceeds to lay down the following immortal dis in reply:

The rest continues in similar vein for the better part of 30 pages. He doesn't mention it in so many words, but I bet he thought they had weak rhymes, too.

--G.
¹John Keegan, The Battle for History: Re-Fighting World War II (New York: Vintage Books, 1995): 80.
²Tony Judt, "A Clown in Regal Purple: Social History and the Historians," History Workshop, no. 7 (Spring 1979): 66.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

If you're already reading Rising Sun and don't actually care about Pearl itself, Infamy isn't going to have a lot new. That said, it's been awhile since I've read my Toland; I went through a big Toland phase about twelve years ago, but he isn't one of those historians I feel a need to re-read just for pleasure, unlike say, McPherson, or Halberstam.%