Wars and Conflicts聽 permalink
Pearl Harbor help
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by MaryJanex (U10543532) on Friday, 30th November 2007
I'm doing a project for my honors class in high school and i need to know how pearl harbor affected american history. i would really appreciate it if someone could help me. you can respond on here, or email me. [Personal details removed by Moderator]
-
Message 2
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Monday, 3rd December 2007
With respect Mary-Janex, your question covers a very large spectrum. I personally think that Pearl Harbour was as big a shock to the American psyche as 09/11.
The fact that negotiations were still going on with the Japanese ambassador to Washington, whilst the Japanese Fleet were nearing their target, must be regarded as something of a sucker punch.
your question raises another question. Had Pearl Harbour not happend, how would the Second World War of panned out? The answer to that question would probably answer your own. -
Message 3
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 3rd December 2007
I would suggest looking at what the US actually gained from Pearl Harbour.
They were already in conflict with japan, without being at war. They had economic sanctions, which played a larrge role in making Japan go to war. Also, look at the post-war situation. Who dominated the pacific area after 1945 ? -
Message 4
Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Monday, 3rd December 2007
I agree with you TimTrack.
The question revolves around the 'How Pearl Harbour affected American History?'
There is no doubt that in the long haul, America gained from both Pearl Harbour and the ensuing (from an American stand-point)World War, which I raise the speculative question, how would American History been different had Pearl Harbour and that dastardly attack, not taken place??? -
Message 5
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 3rd December 2007
I would suggest that Pearl harbour had very little effect in the long run.
US led sanctions were damaging Japan and its ability to control China. If Japan had not attacked, they would have eventually been forced to come to a negotiated agreement with the US. That would have given the US what it wanted. Which was to be the dominant power in the Pacific.
The only 'fly in the ointment' for the US would have been dealing with the European powers. Without war against Japan, could they have held on to their Asiatic dominions ? Clearly, the US was against that. I think that, over the long run, even without the war, the Europeans' days in Asia were drawing to a close. -
Message 6
Posted by Scarboro (U2806863) on Monday, 3rd December 2007
I suggest that the original poster research the reasons why FDR was unable to get into either the war against Hitler or Japan, when he clearly wanted to do so.
Researching the internal American opposition to entering the war might produce some useful insights, particularly as it relates to limitations on presidential authority.
Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor ever, and had Germany never given FDR a cause to enter the war, America might have been forced to stay on the sidelines for a longer period of time. FDR was pushing support for Britain, but was trying to not go so far as to get impeached.
With America on the sidelines, it still would have prospered and been in a dominant position post-WW2, but it might have had to deal with a cold war against Germany rather than the USSR. -
Message 7
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 3rd December 2007
MaryJanex,
i need to know how pearl harbor affected american history聽
It led to war mobilization which helped end the Great Depression in the US.
It ultimately led to American dominion of the seas.
It opened the road to American involvement in Asian land wars. -
Message 8
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Monday, 3rd December 2007
my opinion
fdr had realised that ww2 - even the european bit was going to shape the world - because of the us isolationist policy he had to keep away
he kept inserting the us into it (lend lease etc)
but had to pretend to not be inolved - although it was obvious the us had to be involved to protect themselves
pearl harbour - although a huge defeat for the US - meant that a new world order had started - there was no way the us would take this - and no way the US would not win the ensuing conflict
luckily hitler declared war on the us (he didnt have to ) which ensured that the immense industrial power of the us was introduced into the war - and of course was the reason ww2 was won by the allies
pearl harbour was the reason the world is now dominated by a democracy (good or bad - your choice)
st -
Message 9
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Monday, 3rd December 2007
maryjane - i think your original post should read world history - not us history as one begets the other
st -
Message 10
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
Dec 6, 1941, America was nation that was prepared to make it alone as the world went to Hell---they felt that it could damned well go to hell without them along for the ride. it had extended out of it's continental confines to engage in World affairs as an equal with the great powers in 1898. That was a controversial move about which the nation was ambivalent after the first flush of war fever, and became even more ambivalent as the "liberation" of the Phillipines turned into a long sordid killing business due to a Muslim insurgency. The didn't want Kipling's "White Man's Burden".
Then they got pulled into ww1 by a President elected on the promise to keep them out of it--he pulled them into it on a promise that it would end in just and lasting peace for Europe. Bitterness over what American's saw as the vengeful Treaty of Versaille--a continuation of the power politics of old, left the American people more firmly esconced than ever in their traditional isolationism of pre-1898. Even on the day Pearl Harbor was attacked, the older generation remembered all of these events, having come of age when the last was was the Second Plains War, and listened to the news of the flight of Chief Joseph and the capture of Geronimo as children.
America was, in minds of her citizens, NOT a world power, having briefly experimented with that business and found it not to her liking.
The elite knew otherwise, that protectionism notwithstanding, the US was interdependent with the world, but the elite cannot dictate affairs in such a nation.
On Dec 8, 1941, America was a nation fully and 100% commited to a total world war. All other interests were set aside until the task was completed. Kids went about collecting every piece of scrap metal that could be found. Everyone of everystation in life with access to a piece of dirt grew a "Victory garden". Strict rationing was accepted, with some black marketing but with no significant dissent. Property rights meant nothing. Much is made now of the Japanese being excluded from the coastal regions of the West Coast states now, but nothing was thought of it at the time--because many others faired no better. My grandfather was booted off the land that he rented with a few weeks notice and no compensation at all--in effect left homeless with several children for the land was wanted for a training facility. My greatgrandfather owned his and so got $80 for his 40 acres. Hunderds of thousands had their property taken on days or weeks notice for bases, training camps, or factory expansions---and there was not dissent for the mindset had changed that much that quickly.
My grandfather, too old to fight, lived with his wife and children in an old boxcar for nearly a year while building housing for soldiers, after which they moved up to a tent in which they spent the rest of the war. No whining allowed.
There was massive movement around the country as people moved to where the jobs were. i don't know if it is true, but I have read that the US had a larger percentage of it's women working than either Britain or Germany during the war. It was total mobiization, almost spontaneous and overnight.
Without Pearl Harbor or a similar shocking event, even had the US come into the war eventually, it is unlikely that the response of the people would have been so complete and whole-hearted, and the results in the areas of industrial production somewhat sluggish. What impact would that have had on the war? I suggest one place to look is a thread here about 6 months ago discussing the massive dependence of the Soviet Union on American material during the war, not just Britain.
After the war, it was also the memory of Pearl Harbor, cited as a historic lesson ever since, that has kept the American people supporting, usually, the governments efforts to stay engaged in the affairs of the Old World every since.
My analysis, which may only be worth what you are paying, is that it was Pearl Harbor that made WW2 the great moment of unity and the great collective endeavor that it was--or is remembered as, which as far as social effects is much the same thing. This was a pivotal moment for a society that is fundamentally individualistic and where collective identities are weak and diffused. Without the war being the unifying social experience that it was, it is likely that much of the collectivism that started under Roosevelt would have been reversed and the latter extensions not have happened at all. Without Pearl Harbor, Medicare and Medicaid would more likely have been state endeavors to what extent they happened at all, social security allowed to dry on the vine and evolve into welfare. The rallying cry for keeping social security afloat for 25 years has been "They fought and sacrificed to win the war, now they are entitled to taken care of in their old age". I do know that in my "neigborhood", white southerners went into WW2 thinking of the United States as "them", and soon were thinking of it as "us". Genuine hatred for yankees morphed to simple resentment or even lack of that. It became possible for the young to marry northerners with only mild teasing instead of social ostracism and exclusion from the family. The impact of the war on the subsequent civil rights movement is well documented, if inflated. My own belief is not that it fueled the civil rights movement, but rather by creating a general since of unity allowed it to proceed much less violently than it otherwise might have.
Pearl Harbor helped create the 1950's, a time when Americans drifted back to their civilian positions and neigborhoods with clear memories of that moment in time when the usual social distinctions were blurred. It was the time of, except for the race issue, greatest social and economic equality in the US. The Bank President who served as a lowly clerk sargent my be having his tire changed by a decorated airborne hero and that awareness raised the general level of ordinary daily courtesy to one not usual in the nation prior or since.
Pearl Harbor didn't have to happen. Japan could have gambled that the US would not attack, and continued to prosecute the war in China with a less mechanized less petrol dependent force (they hardly needed bombers and tanks to massacre Chinese peasants). Japan could have chosen to attack the US forces in the Phillipines and engaged the Pacific fleet when it responded. While that would have brought the US into the war, it would not have brought all the American people heart and soul into the fight--most thought we had no business being in the Philipines in the first place. -
Message 11
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
stalteriisok,
pearl harbour - although a huge defeat for the US - meant that ... no way the US would not win the ensuing conflict聽
Certainly, once FDR defined the terms of victory at the Casablanca Conference in 1943. Until then the Allies were more interested in "not losing the war."
luckily hitler declared war on the us (he didnt have to ) which ensured that the immense industrial power of the us was introduced into the war ... 聽
Hitler ensured that it would be introduced into the European war. Pearl Harbor ensured that it would be used in the Pacific war. -
Message 12
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
KurtBronson,
Pearl Harbor didn't have to happen. Japan could have gambled that the US would not attack ...
... Japan could have chosen to attack the US forces in the Phillipines and engaged the Pacific fleet when it responded. While that would have brought the US into the war, it would not have brought all the American people heart and soul into the fight--most thought we had no business being in the Philipines in the first place.聽
The Japanese had long expected a US attack. From 1920 both sides' strategies called for a classic surface-ship battle in the western Pacific. In one US war-game the "Japanese" side won.
The strategy of Yamamoto's bold stroke was to short circuit all this by knocking out the US fleet for some months while the Japanese consolidated their gains in the hopes of gaining a military and diplomatic fait accompli. If they'd hit the oil tanks they might have done it; if they'd done that and sunk one or two carriers they probably would have.
and continued to prosecute the war in China with a less mechanized less petrol dependent force (they hardly needed bombers and tanks to massacre Chinese peasants).聽
I've yet to hear of any army, once mechanized, readily giving up their toys. -
Message 13
Posted by Scarboro (U2806863) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
Kurt,
Fantastic analysis. I hope maryjanex is still reading and is appreciative.
By the way after Pearl Harbor, I think it was Yamamoto who said something like "I fear we have wakened a sleeping tiger and filled him with a terrible vengeance". Too true.
Regards
Brian -
Message 14
Posted by schuhbox4 (U10370736) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
Waiting for the Americans wasn't really an option for the Japanese because they believed the American fleet at Pearl was a threat to the oil fields in Java, which the Japanese desperately needed to continue the war in China and the Pacific. As White Camry (not sure if the abbreviation WC would be appreciated) noted, it would be unrealistic to think that Japan's military, which essentially ran the country, would be willing to give up mechanized warfare. The reason Japan's army was able to massacre those Chinese peasants was its technological superiority. Given China's numerical superiority, it is hard to imagine Japan lasting long without a technological advantage.
Unfortunately for the Japanese, and fortunately for just about everybody else, the American aircraft carriers were not in harbor that day at Pearl Harbor. Had the Lexington and Enterprise been sunk on Dec. 7th, it likely would have set the American war effort back a year or more. However, I don't believe it would have changed the outcome. Japan's utter lack of resources is a stark contrast to the abundance of natural resources available in the US. Once those resources were put to military use, the outcome was almost certain.
In grad school, I had a professor who liked to argue that the importance of Pearl Harbor was greatly overstated. For him, every war in American history was about trade and access to markets. His argument was that if Japan reigned supreme in East Asia, America would be shut out of those markets. Likewise, a German dominated Europe would have little interest in American goods. Thus, America faced the prospect of fighting or having to endure massive unemployment and the fear of social revolution that often follows economic crisis. His argument was that Pearl Harbor simply dictated the timing of America's entry into the war rather than whether or not the US would fight.
As others have mentioned, it's no secret FDR wanted to get in the fight but was waiting for American public opinion to come around to his way of thinking. Pearl Harbor accomplished just that. However, I agree with my old prof, though not in all the details, that the US was destined to get involved in the war with or without Pearl Harbor. This may sound like nitpicking, but many of the affects some are attributing to Pearl Harbor are really the aftereffects of World War II as a whole. I agree 100% about Pearl's impact on morale and public opinion, and these in turn on manufacturing output but the social and legislative affects are the product of the long war rather than solely Pearl Harbor.
Kurt Bronson - Great story about Southern attitudes pre/post war to the North.
1.One affect that hasn't been much discussed is the affect Pearl Harbor had on racial attitudes during the war and after. Simply put, the surprise attack with no declaration of war really pissed off most Americans. The term 鈥渄irty Jap鈥 and other epithets were repeated often, with deep disgust and genuine animus. I would argue this had an affect on the manner of fighting in the Pacific. I don't recall the specifics of the study, but I read a story reporting that in comparison to American soldiers fighting in Europe, those who fought in the Pacific showed much less remorse and suffered fewer psychological problems over killing their enemy in battle. Although race played a major part as well- Germans looked a lot like the typical American soldier, the Japanese did not- there was definitely a feeling in the US that the Japanese deserved what they got.
I think the negative image of the Japanese fostered by Pearl Harbor also played a role in the decision to drop the A-Bomb on Japan. I honestly do not believe that Truman would have made the same decision in regards to Germany. The hate for the Japanese did not go away easily either, particularly with those who lived through the war. When Mitsubishi, Toyota and Nissan began selling cars in the US in the 1970's many Americans were livid. My brother-in-law had a friend whose father kicked him out of the house when he came home a Japanese car in the early 80's. -
Message 15
Posted by schuhbox4 (U10370736) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
Also, that attitude towards Asians helps explain why the Nisei, Japanese-Americans, were interned during the war.
-
Message 16
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
Regarding the internments:
Then why weren't they interned in Hawaii, the site of the attack? Why were those living away from the exclusion zone not interned? Was racial animus confined to those living in the coastal zone of the West Coast?
BTW, more Italians and Germans were actually forcibly interned than Japanese. Most of the Japanese were excluded from the coastal zone, not interned. They were free to live anywhere else they wanted, but were provided housing in the camps until they were able to provide for themselves elsewhere. Most had left the camps on their own before they were released to return to the coastal zone.
Pretty much like my grandfather and the hundreds of thousands of other Americans living somewhere that the military didn't want them, they were thrown out of their homes on short notice. The difference was the Japanese were provided with an option of going to the camps, and their sons were exempted from the draft. Also those who owned their land retained ownership and got it back afterwards, with their personal effects inventoried and warehoused for return as well. Renters fared worse of course as they didn't own their land and so had no property to return to.
There has been a lot of misconceptions about that business, which was a realistic response to military circumstances of the moment, not racial animus, but I'll leave off for now as it isn't the central issue. Racial animus was real of course, but was not the reason for that decision.
The racial hatred that the soldiers came home with wasn't due to Pearl (which gave it a good start), but due to systematic torture that the Japanese practiced routinely making the sneak attack of Dec 7, '41 look downright chivalrous in comparison. It wasn't Pearl Harbor that made the dropping of the A-bomb a guilt free experience--it was Bataan, New Guinnea, and Okinawa. I spoke to a veteran who had to kill Japanese school girls sent to attack him at night with bamboo spears on Okinawa--and he certainly was and is affected by that--and the only way to cope is to focus the moral responsibility where it belongs--Japan. Japan killed those girls, not him. I have never discussed the A-bomb issue with any American with the slightest twinge of guilt who had more than a passing knowledge of the war and the details of Japans war-making methods. It wasn't that the differences in appearance between the Japanese and the Germans but the differences in behavior. -
Message 17
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
Regarding the inevitability of the attack:
I am not saying that they had to demechanize entirely, but that they didn't need access to the fuel that the American's controlled to pursue war against the Chinese as the disparity in resources was so great--they could have pursued that with a continued massive superiority even with a fuel shortage. They had access to all the animal and slave labor they could ever want for transport.
At Nanking, they lined up Chinese in rows to shoot them to save ammo. When killing with those methods, a dive bomber seems to me to be relatively inefficient to the extreme. I could be wrong, but given the German's ability to do what they did with fuel shortages, it seems reasonable to me.
I know that they needed access to the fuel to operate their fleet, which they would not have needed except for war with the US--Britain and the other powers in the region were pinned down elsewhere. There were options that they were unwilling, one can say unable if one wishes, to consider. Even once the choice for war was made, there were other options for pursuing it that might have worked out better for them. Just my opinion of course not a question of fact. I suppose it is unreasonable to expect someone to make a choice that leaves them vulnerable to a potential enemy, but today we constantly demand that Israel leave herself vulnerable to sworn, not potential, enemies--so the idea is not so alien. One can argue even more persuasivly using the same language which denies free will, that it is unwilling to expect the US to continue to permit trade in critical resources it controls to a nation capable and willing of attacking it--as Japan did of course--in effect supplying ones enemy. In other words "it had no choice" and "Japan forced the US to cut off her oil". Either we all have free will or none of us have free will so in the end it is illogical to hold one nation responsible for the policy choices of another.
Japan only had to go to war with the United States to retain her option to go to war against the United States--a profoundly insolationist nation at that time politically incapable of initiating agressive action until Japan attacked her first--thus breaking that paralysis. Put that way, attacking the US looks not only avoidable, but downright reckless. -
Message 18
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
schuhbox4,
As White Camry (not sure if the abbreviation WC would be appreciated)聽
If it was good enough for Winston Churchill ...
-
Message 19
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
KurtBronson ,
Then why weren't they interned in Hawaii, the site of the attack? Why were those living away from the exclusion zone not interned? Was racial animus confined to those living in the coastal zone of the West Coast?聽
No but the Nisei of Hawaii had by then become a sizable part of the population and an integral part of farm labor which the folks at Dole weren't interested in losing. Besides, it would have tied up scarce shipping.
Most of the Japanese were excluded from the coastal zone, not interned. They were free to live anywhere else they wanted, but were provided housing in the camps until they were able to provide for themselves elsewhere.聽
Ah ... that explains the barbed wire and armed guards. -
Message 20
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
i mentioned in my earlier post about Hitlers decision to declare war on the us - phew!!- BUT what would have happened if he had not ??
the elimination of the poison dwarf was far more importance to world history than the japanese domination of the pacific surely - that cold have been rolled back piecemeal
hitler on the other hand was capable of developing nuclear weapons and using them
What would have been the final outcome without hitlers declaration
Kurt - i would be interested in your take on this - you being a colonial boy lol
incidentally - i didnt realise that the US had rationing - hot footing it to google to read up on it
st -
Message 21
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
What would have happened had Hitler not been so gracious about solving Roosevelt and Churchills problem for them? I don't know, one fellows speculation is as good as another I guess. It seems to me that the US would have continued to escalate their antisubmarine operations in the Atlantic until war was fully engaged, but a delay of 3 months or more could have made a huge diffenrence as the US would have already committed resources to the Pacific for major offensive operations there. A 3 month delay in formalizing war with Germany could have delayed the US's full engagement in Europe much longer than just 3 months.
One must remember that the US was and Germany had already taken their first shots, the USS Rueben James being torpedoed about a month before I believe--and US destoyers engaging German subs.
Any speculation ought to take into account the following:
Japan would have been driven back to the home Islands sooner--likely '44 instead of '45. What would have happened then?
Russia would not have done as well so quickly without the massive US aid.
Germany was no where near building a bomb in '45 so that isn't a problem unless the war goes on much longer.
Would there have been a Manhatten project, with the war just being a regional affair for the US? If there were, would it have proceeded so rapidly? Would Britain have contributed her intellectual resources which she did without reservation with the US not side by side in the main fight? -
Message 22
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
The Japanese in Hawaii were deemed not a threat on balance. The decisions were make by the local military authorities in each case--I don't know of Dole having a seat at the table. The Japanese of Hawaii had virtually no sense of loyalty to Japan. Most had come 2 generations before, very few were born in Japan, and on their immigration had been rejected as not true Japanese in the homeland as that was the cultural attitude of Japan at the time. The Empire attempted to develope a fith column in Hawaii and had little success. Some got caught up in it before the war, but the Japanese community ratted them out quickly and was extremely loyal as a whole--cooperating extensively with Navy intelligience in locating Japanese agents--even before the attack.
In California, the Japanese immigration had come later, mostly around 1920, all but the youngest were not citizens and many spoke no English. They had come at a time when the Empire was attempting to imbue an imperial spirit in emigrants and actively involving them in extending the influence of the Empire in the Pacific. That they were all loyal Americans is largely a myth which resonates with our mythology of ourselves as a nation-and so never gets contradicted. The facts inconsistent with that myth go untold.
More Japanese resident aliens or citizens did or attempted to join the Japanese Imperial Army than joined the US military. One of the officers in the notorious Phillipine POW camps was a California born American citizen.
While the Japanese volunteer units that fought in Europe served awesomely and more than anything else created the sense of embarassment Americans felt about the distrust, only 5% of eligible Japanese volunteered--the lowest volunteer rate of any ethinic group, including pacifist religious minorities. Some Indian tribes had 100% volunteer rates.
The most important fact to consider is the reason that it was done in the first place. For the first month after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when a frantic defensive build up was proceeding their and the forces in the Phillipines were abandoned to their grim fate, every vessel that left west coast ports bound for Hawaii experienced an actual or attempted encounter with a Japanese submarine shortly after leaving port. Three things were clear:
1. There was an intelligience network feeding information to the Japanese navy about shipments.
2. It was almost certainly dependent on ethnic Japanese.
3. We didn't have time to play spy games--it had to stop now.
With the exclusion directive, the attacks stoped immediately.
So the government tells one man "For the good of your country I am going to take your house for a base and you have to go get your head blown off. Do it or go to jail." It tells another "For the good of the country you have to go live somewhere else. We will keep you house for you if you own it. You son can get his head blown off or not as it pleases him." What is the difference.
Regarding barbed wire, about 10,000 were forcibly interned. These were those for whom there was deemed to be a good reason to question their loyalty. About 15,000 from Germany or Italy were forcibly interned.
They were prepared to do the same thing to the (white) Italians who inhabited the port cities of the east and formed most of the dock workers. There were few fascist among them, and most importantly, the mafia promised the FBI to prevent any spying or sabatoge. In fact the FBI had to ask them to be less enthusiastic and leave the FBI something alive to interrogate--they got carried away. -
Message 23
Posted by schuhbox4 (U10370736) on Thursday, 6th December 2007
RE: Internment
You seem to have an ax to grind. I don't know where you are getting your facts, but as a history teacher, the sources I've seen have 110,000-120,000 Japanese-Americans living in internment camps during WW 2. I have read that approximately 10,000 were allowed to relocate, while the vast majority were sent to camps. Additionally, many, if not most, Nisei who were forced to leave the Pacific Coast never received full compensation for their property. People in the area knew the Nisei had few options and thus offered nothing or next to nothing for their farms, homes and businesses. This stands out because their property was not taken for use by the military, and thus somewhat justified as a wartime emergency, but simply taken over by other citizens. To my knowledge, about 10,000 Italians were forced to relocate but only a few hundred were held in military camps. Relocation is quite different from internment. I would also say you are vastly downplaying the degradation of living behind barbed wire with armed guards. They were little better than prisoners. Considering the percent of each ethnic population affected, clearly the Japanese-Americans were targeted to a much greater extent that Italian-Americans. 10,000 or 110,000, either way - not one of our better moments.
Also, it is unfair to cite statistics about the percent of racial minorities that served during the war. In simple fact, the military didn't exactly go out of its way get Japanese-Americans or most other minorities in uniform. Many were turned down. The fact that they basically had to serve in their own unit, the famed 442nd which had a 314% casualty rate and earned 21 Medals of Honor, tells you how they were received. I have never heard that more Japanese resident aliens served in the Imperial Army than the American army. I would be very interested to know where you read that. I have no doubt whatsoever that some Japanese-Americans were disloyal, it just seems that you are painting with a pretty wide brush.
I studied Native American history in grad school and your point about Indian participation is interesting, but also involves racial stereotyping. Because of the popular image of Indians as great warriors, the government placed an emphasis on recruiting Indians during both WW I and WW 2. Once in combat, Indians were often chosen as scouts or point men and often given dangerous jobs due to their reputation for courage and fighting ability. Because of this, Indians suffered a higher casualty rate than most other ethnic groups. This is an interesting topic if you have the time/inclination to look it up. Some Indian tribes, the Sioux included as I remember, even declared war on Germany themselves and wanted to arrange separate peace treaties.
You are certainly correct that Italian and German-Americans took their share of criticism and it has largely been forgotten, but I don't think it was as pervasive as the hostility toward Japanese-Americans. Incidentally, the same sort of thing occurred during WW I. I forget the exact numbers, but the number of German language newspapers in the US dropped by over half by the end of the war. More personally, my mother and father were both of German descent and my mother can remember attending church and singing the hymns in German and most people speaking German. This changed largely because of the war. Personally, I find that unfortunate. I took some German but I'm not fluent. I just think more Americans could learn a foreign language 鈥 which may include some of the English-English I see on this message board.
There is a 鈥渃鈥 in schedule for a reason people!! 
Certainly the treatment of American POW's had a great affect on Americans' perception of the Japanese, but the term Dirty Jap, Zipperhead, Sneaky Jap, and Nip were being used long before the American public knew anything about Bataan or the treatment of POW's anywhere else. The order for internment came months before the fall of the Philippines, though a couple months after Wake Island. Still, I have little doubt that the surpise attack on Pearl at a time when Japanese and American ambassadors were still meeting, was the impetus for an enhanced hatred of the Japanese. The POW issue just fueled the fire.
Also, the Nisei in Hawaii were not trusted by the American military. When the Japanese attacked Wheeler and Hickam Field, the American air bases, the American aircraft made easy targets because they were all clustered in the center of the airfield. (Incidentally, and not surprisingly, Hollywood got the attack wrong in the movie Pearl Harbor as the movie had the Japanese planes bombing the battleships first, then attacking the airfields. The Japs, of course, first tried to prevent any counterattack by destroying the American airplanes.) This was done because the American military was concerned about sabotage by Japanese descendants. I would say the reason the Nisei and Sansei were not removed from Hawaii had much to do with sheer numbers and their resemblance to the native Hawaiian population, though I don't have any evidence to back that up.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the war in China as well. One of Japan's great failures of the war was getting bogged down in China and having to commit too many men for too long to that theater of the war rather than using those men in other arenas. That was with the use of tanks and planes. Take those away and it is hard to imagine they would have been more successful.
Pearl Harbor was a calculated gamble that obviously failed. The Japanese hoped that either the American Fleet would be so crippled that it could not fight or that the American people would be intimidated and would not fight. It all comes down to oil. You simply cannot fight a modern war without oil. Even accepting your premise that the Japanese could have defeated the Chinese without using much oil, it is unreasonable to believe the Japanese could have defeated the US and GB without oil. Japan knew that eventually the US and Europe would turn her way. I seem to recall that Japan had something like a year's worth of oil reserves. After that, how could they have fought the American and British navies? The US would not have allowed the Japanese to take the Asian oilfields without a fight. Japan understood this and thus launched their preemptive strike.
As for Hitler's declaration of war, I also don't think it changed the course of the war. The fact that FDR immediately agreed to a 鈥淕ermany first鈥 prosecution of the war while fighting a holding action in the Pacific- despite the fact that it was Japan that actually attacked us 鈥 should tell you a great deal about American priorities. -
Message 24
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Thursday, 6th December 2007
My facts regarding the numbers of Japanese who were relocated, who were interned, the numbers of volunteers for the US Army etc are from an official US Army publication taken from the archives seen by me about 10 years ago, so published at some part prior to that.
I know that it conflicts with the Sunday Supplement version, but I have no reason to disbelieve it.
The vast majority of the relocated Japanese had to go to the camps initially because most of the older generation had no or limited English, knew no Japanese living in the interior, and frankly were afraid of the hostitility of the population--a logical concern given the strictly racist delineation of westerners as sub-human in their country of origin. But the fact remains that 9 out of 10 did not have to live in the camps, they could leave and live elsewhere. By the time the camps order was recinded, most had left and found civilian housing and the jobs required to support it.
The facts regarding the property are as I report them. The government warehoused and returned personal property and they kept ownership of real estate if they had it. Most were renters and so lost their homes for good. A great many, foolishly in retrospect, didn't trust the government's promise regarding their personal property and sold it off for nothing.
The government didn't have to recruit the indians--they signed up in droves. The sioux weren't the only nation to declare war on Germany. Some declared war before congress did. The Iroquois met to discuss it, but didn't declare war for the simple reason that they had never made peace after ww1 when they declared war on Germany. Indians from all over showed up at recruiting stations in droves on Dec 8--not time to be responding to government recruiting efforts.
Different war, but the attitude was represented by the Blackfeet declaration of war in WW1, followed by the presentation of every adult male for service. The recruiters faced with an overwhelming number, many of whom wouldn't meet the standards, told them to go home and the government would select the ones they needed by a draft. The Blackfeet responded "We do not draw lots to go to war. When the blackfoot nation goes to war, the whole nation goes to war."
Also the facts about the total numbers of internee's of all ethnicities are from that same Army publication.
I don't see it as anything for the nation to be embarassed about--any more than conscription itself, equally an abrogation of individual liberty. We will just have to differ on that judgement, but ought to be able to work from the same set of facts.
As for difference of opinion, that is what makes things interesting.
As a Louisianian, my people were French speakers, and did so for more generations while in the new world than we have been English speakers actually. I have no qualms about giving that up at all and think it a good thing that my mother tongue is the tongue of the nation in which I live rather than an ethnic enclave--I have a lot more freedom and opportunity as a result. A language is just a practical issue for me and it is more practical for me to speak the mother tongue. Some here hang on to French for nostaligic reasons--which is sort of cute but means nothing more.
I likewise find it a good thing that the German's gave up their enclave mentality and assimilated. There are some advantages of course to bilingualism but national unity and full opportunity for everyone requires a common language. It is unreasonable to expect to walk around speaking in the language of the nation's enemies and not experience problems as a result of that. If you set yourself apart as something different, people are going to treat you differently. If Louisianians, who never choose to immigrate to the US, rather had the US immigrate to them, can take such a practical attitude, then immigrants who refuse to assimilate can expect no accomdation from them. -
Message 25
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 6th December 2007
Re: Message 10.
Kurt,
"fantastic analysis". I join Scarboro in that appreciation.
For me it is again the proof that only "insider" people can tell the "feelings" of people in a given country while only they and their family have lived "through" it.
My grandmother was born in 1889 and mostly from her and from my mother I heard the "mood" from WWI and WWII in Belgium. And the mood was one of "mostly" accomodation to the occupation by the Germans and to live their lives as good as possible and very few resistance. Only when things were worsening to the end especially in WWII the resistance was growing and immediately after they were nearly all "resistants".
BTW: My personal opinion as I all read it, was that the most efficiant resistance was those of the escaping routes, those to hide people, like Jews and other undesirable people, the food chain for all this hiding people, the mapping of the German forces for Allied attacks, and printing of the leaflets to boost the moral. The John Wayne actions were in my humble opinion contraproductive and didn't add too much to the damage of the German war machine. On the contrary they sparked reactions that hindered the work of the said other organizations.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 26
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Thursday, 6th December 2007
I've no criticism for those who weren't in the resistance. Adapt and Survive--that is the art of life for all living organisms.
It brings to mind a story about our civil war here, a local story in our area in which one of the Frenchmen was enrolled in the Confederate Army but went AWOL when union forces came into the area.
He showed back up in his unit in time for the fight. It turns out that he had been hauling freight for the Union for cash pay. The Cause was one thing, but hard cash another--win or lose, the kids had to eat.
I see no point at all in dying for a cause, and it is only sometimes useful to kill for one. More often aims can be better achieved by less direct and less destructive means. -
Message 27
Posted by schuhbox4 (U10370736) on Friday, 7th December 2007
KurtBronson
鈥淚 know that it conflicts with the Sunday Supplement version, but I have no reason to disbelieve it.鈥
I don't wish to go back and forth on this and beat the issue to death, but I can't take your dismissal of the number of Japanese-Americans living in internment camps during the war. Your source conflicts with the Sunday Supplement version, every book I have read, the Congressional Record, America's closest 麻豆约拍 relative- PBS, The Atlantic Monthly, The Smithsonian Institute and every newspaper and magazine article (Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report, Life) I've ever seen. But you seem to think that one article you read 鈥渁bout ten years ago鈥 is a more accurate source? The government paid claims to families of 26,000 Japanese-Americans interned during WW 2. Right generous of them if only 10,000 were interned. If this is a conspiracy, I wonder- is it right wing or left wing?
鈥淏ut the fact remains that 9 out of 10 did not have to live in the camps, they could leave and live elsewhere.鈥
Again, this conflicts with everything I've read and I wonder if this 鈥渇act鈥 came from that same source or another. If they were free to leave, why the barbed wire? Why the armed guards? Seems to be overkill if they were free to leave as they choose. I simply don't believe in taking away people's rights so glibly. As Franklin said, 鈥淎ny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." It also reminds me of something Lincoln said about wishing that those who defended slavery could have it tried on them. The idea that some Japanese-Americans may have been guilty thus all needed to be punished/watched is a bit too simplistic for my tastes, like Bush's 鈥淵ou're either with us or against us.鈥
You'll also note that I suggested American could do well to learn a foreign language, which is not the same thing as not learning English. I like to have a strong sense of where I come from, and part of that is recognizing where my ancestors came from, how they got here and how they lived. That is likely more important to myself than most people, it's just my opinion. Part of the reason I learned German was that I wanted to talk with my grandfather in his native language, though he spoke English as well as anyone. I'm happy I did it.
Anyway, good to talk with you, I'm sure we'll meet again on the boards but I'll likely let this topic rest. In the words of our esteemed hosts 鈥 Cheers! And have a good weekend.
A link for anyone interested.
-
Message 28
Posted by schuhbox4 (U10370736) on Friday, 7th December 2007
Paul,
I like your take on the resistance movement. I recently read a book on Churchill that although generally spoke very highly of WC, really criticized his support of armed resistance movements. It explained that WC was impressed with the role resistance/partisan groups played during, I believe, the Boer War. WC hoped resistance groups could tie down the Germans, making things easier on the British, and later Allied, forces. The author noted, however, that on D-Day not a single German division was detailed to fighting resistance groups. Additionally, the book suggested that the bitterness created by partisan fights in the Balkans and Greece played a role in the instability of those countries following the war. I do wonder though, if in at least some countries the resistance movements weren't quite important to national pride following the war. Any thoughts? -
Message 29
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Friday, 7th December 2007
One more time, then I am through. Don't read anything into it that isn't said:
About 100,000 Japanese lived in the camps.
About 10,000 Japanese were interned, that is forcibly confined.
The other 90,000 or so were actually free to move out of the camps, and most did eventually, they just weren't free to live in the exclusion zone.
Those are the facts. -
Message 30
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 8th December 2007
Re: Message 26.
Kurt, thank you for the reply and for the interesting story of the American civil war.
Warm regards, Paul. -
Message 31
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 8th December 2007
Re: Message 28.
Schuhbox,
are you German BTW with your correct Schuhe
?
Thank you very much for your interesting comments.
"any thoughts?"
perhaps not national pride, except for the decorated ones with the national flags? Perhaps! the Poles are more proud on their resistance groups?? I regret the absence of my Polish friend, Jozef, who didn't want to be restricted on these boards.
No, I think that large groups, who wanted to do armed resistance had to have some also large hiding grounds as in Yugoslavia, Greece, Middle-France? Any thoughts?
What was however the case, I think, was that resistance groups prepared already the afterwar "realities" as for instance the Communist resistance in Belgium?
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 32
Posted by schuhbox4 (U10370736) on Monday, 10th December 2007
Yes, both my mother and father are of German descent - Schuh and Meartz. I live in the Wisconsin, USA and the entire state is heavily influenced by its German heritage. There is a reason we are known for our beer and bratwurst!
I am a newcommer to the board so I don't know Jozef, but I've heard good things about him. Everyone commended his insight and opinions. I would have been interested to hear his thoughts on my post about living behind the Iron Curtain. Where I live, it's hard to get a foreign perspective on history and current events and that is why I was drawn to this message board. It's too bad I missed out on reading his experiences.
I agree with your point about any large scale resistance needing enough area to operate and hide themselves. Certainly the Balkans offered the resistance groups plenty of places to hide. But I think the author of the Churchill book was more concerned with the civil wars that broke out throughout the Balkans and Greece. Or was the post war fighting in Belgium more serious than I am aware?
When mentioning national pride, I was thinking of how the French rallied around De Gaulle. Did the Free French have a great impact on the war? Not really, but after the war it seems to me that the Feench thought it was important that some French were fighting the Nazis. I would expect that every country feels the same way about its citizens who died resisting the Germans and feel that those men and women defended not only their country's soil but its honor too.
I also feel that most of these groups would have fought the Germans with or without Churchill's encouragement.
Have a good day.
jamie -
Message 33
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 10th December 2007
Re: Message 32.
Jamie,
thank you for your intimate first two paragraphs.
For the other paragraphs I am, as they say in German, a bit "眉berfragt" (can't translate it with one word in English: asked more than one can answer?).
Yes the Greek civil war, with British asking help to the Americans to tackle the difficulties. But that is also a story worth an apart thread.
No, post war fighting in Belgium wasn't that big, while our British and American friends moved in and with them the Belgian government in exile. Some difficulties with settlements between communists and others, and between so-called resistants and collaborators. We had also a big row about our King remained in Belgium during the war. I tried together with another Belgian to explain it on a French forum of history and I needed to reiterate 10 books of the more than twenty I read about the "Kings Question", to explain it to the Frenchmen. There was also an "angry" thread on these boards from a Canadian (of Flemish descent) fan of Leopold III.
de Gaulle and the French. I am now since two years on French messageboards and I am not sure if they are in peace with the Vichy government, Mar茅chal P茅tain, the collaboration, the resistance yet. And yes their was much fight in France too immediately after the war. Have read hundreds of messages about that question and seen hours of documentaries on line from URL's incorporated in them.
But they are so lucky that they had had de Gaulle after all, to save their honour. And yes a de Gaulle starting on 18 June 1940 was a real blessing for them in all their misery about the collaboration. And to be honest we Belgians had also the luck that after months of hesitating the government decided to flee to London via Portugal...
And yes, every country, up to my knowledge, was and is proud of the resisitants, who defended the honour of their country against the Nazi's, even the Germans...But that resistance and collaboration is such a tricky question that it is in most countries just settled since some years and many times it pops up at the most unexpected moments, as in Belgium and in the other once occupied countries.
Your last sentence, not sure about it. Let it to the honourable British contributors...
Have a good day,
Paul. -
Message 34
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 35
Posted by AgProv2 (U538194) on Tuesday, 11th December 2007
I do know that in my "neigborhood", white southerners went into WW2 thinking of the United States as "them", and soon were thinking of it as "us". Genuine hatred for yankees morphed to simple resentment or even lack of that. It became possible for the young to marry northerners with only mild teasing instead of social ostracism and exclusion from the family. The impact of the war on the subsequent civil rights movement is well documented, if inflated. My own belief is not that it fueled the civil rights movement, but rather by creating a general sense of unity allowed it to proceed much less violently than it otherwise might have.聽
Interesting points. If it isn't presumptuous of me to make a case from several thousand miles away to one who who actually lives in the old Confederacy, have you perhaps considered these points:
i) in 1941, the US Army was as completely segregated as anything the South Africans came up with during apartheid days - perhaps a relection of the society that created it?
ii) Black soldiers were seen as non-combatants, an unskilled pool of labour to be used for digging, building, fetching and carrying. There was very deep-seated prejudice against arming blacks and teaching them to fight: even General Patton doubted that black soliders would fight as long and as well as whites, and even Eisenhower himself is reputed to have shared this prejudice.
iii) A lot of white officers and politicians from the South actually feared the consequences of teaching black Americans how to fight and use weapons - what would happen if they came home with these skills and wanted to play catch-up for years of being on the receiving end? (Guilty consciences...) There was also a feeling that full status in the Army would leave black Americans with the impression that they were the equals of the white men they were serving alongside, and obviously this could not be encouraged...
In the whole of WW2, only a small handful of black combat formations were raised (there was a USAAF fighter wing, and two or three black infantry batallions that fought with distinction in Italy and France - dispelling the prejudice that black men couldn't fight, and leading Patton to grudgingly admit he might have been wrong)
However, even for the majority of black Americans sent overseas as storesmen, pioneers, and labourers, it was their first time outside the USA and meeting different attitudes for the first time was a revelation. There was still racism, certainly, but I've read accounts by black U.S. soldiers of how courteously and decently they were treated in Britain, and how it was a culture shock to meet other white people who just saw them as American, not as negroes, and saw no distinction. Occupied France was also, apparently, a new world for black Americans which included, for instance, lots of oportunity for inter-racial affairs with white women.
Having seen this greater degree of freedom in Europe, was it any surprise that black American soldiers returned home and wanted the old ways to change? One of the first cases of the Civil Rights movement was a black soldier, decorated and promoted for bravery in combat, who pointed out quite reasonably that he'd laid his life on the line for the USA to the same degree any white soldier had, so please don't call me a "n****r". For which he was beaten almost to death by the local sherriff and his deputies...
(Am I allowed to use that word here, even though in the context I'm quoting and using it to highlight other peoples' racism, and it's justified in the context? I'll change it if necessary) - eviently not!
so you could say that WW2 was a trigger for change for American racial attitudes and this coulds come out in any thesis? -
Message 36
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 11th December 2007
Kimages, as you posted the topic twice there is still an active thread. They may just have shut down one to avoid duplication
-
Message 37
Posted by Kimages (U10379623) on Thursday, 13th December 2007
Dear Sir,
Wado for your kind reply, our posting was removed due to complaints from Kurt Bronson [the above mentioned person] because of his untrue statements he made about our people. [saying we were for profit company etc].
If I may just clear the air...First and foremost we are non-profit organization. For more than 60 years now the Indian Creek Tribe has carry on free Public Education Programs in the Public Schools and Colleges around this Country free too all schools and our people work at this by donating their time to Education and educational projects. We have no need of Casino, Children and Casino do not go together. We are asking for nothing more than support for who we are. Federal Recognition has always been a land issue the lands Americans are living on belonged too us in the beginning and were taken from us by force. Our land is Sacred to us-any amount of honest research will show this to be true.
We can show our Forefathers back many hundreds of years, this is a requirement as part of the federal recognition process. We also have had tribal government that pre-dates the American Government by hundreds of years. This is also part of the Federal Recognition requirements. We fought with the British during the revolution, this is also well documented and part of our history.
Dragging Canoe was Chickamauga Cherokee, this branch of the Cherokee "was born" out of a "great divide" among our people. The Cherokee people basically split-between those who believed the US would give them their land back-[if you wonder what happened there just look up the "Trail of Tears" the heart break of that horror will be clear to you]- the other Cherokee being those who refused to give up their lands and fought under Dragging Canoe. When those Cherokee opted to join in the fighting of the American Revolution, on the side of the British, Dragging Canoe was at the head of one of the major attacks-[and many others]
After the wholesale destruction of the Cherokee Middle (Hill), Valley, and Lower Towns] Dragging Canoe led a band out of the towns of the Overhill Cherokee to the area surrounding Chickamauga River (South Chickamauga Creek) in the Chattanooga TN area US, where they established eleven towns, including the one named Chickamauga "across river" from a place where the British commissary John McDonald had set up shop- doing so on the advice of Alexander Cameron, the British agent to the Cherokee. From this location, frontiersmen gave Dragging Canoe's group the name the Chickamauga and so we were/are called from that day forward.
We offered our hand to the people of England to join in honor and shared history by supporting our petition. Rather than joining together, Kurt choose to insult our culture and our history by posting false statements about our people and then filing a complaint with the moderator. This has destroyed our hope for unified understanding between our nations.[I hope I am wrong]
There was over 50,000,000 American Indian people in North , South, and Central America, today, due to the cultural genocide of millions of native people, we have been reduced to a fraction of that.
We did not take your land, Burn your houses kill your women and children, and then say you can not be who you are. We are strong people and Dragging Canoe had faith in England, we have not lost that faith despite all that has happened on this 麻豆约拍 message board.
Millions of our people died just as the Jews did, and here/麻豆约拍 message board there are people like Kurt, who would finish the job by generating cross cultural and international mis-understanding on a global scale.
We do so reside on the history board now and I pray things will go better this time.
Wado for allowing me to speak.
If you wish to learn more about our people post a question for the Chief on our board and he will answer you.
Do not send hate mail, we will not respond -
Message 38
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Thursday, 13th December 2007
"complaints from Kurt Bronson [the above mentioned person] because of his untrue statements he made about our people. [saying we were for profit company etc]. "
As best as I can recall, I have never made a complaint to the mods about anyone on this site. -
Message 39
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Friday, 14th December 2007
This discussion is off topic for this thread on Pearl Harbour.
There is already one thread on the Cherokee etc here:
Please can you not interrupt other discussions with this debate.
If you have had a message removed and are unsure why please contact the moderators directly by replying to the mail you recieved notifying you that your post was taken down. Messages/debates on moderator's decisions are not appropriate for these boards as it is a matter between the poster and the moderator team.
Many thanks
Andrew -
Message 40
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Friday, 14th December 2007
Apologies. Please refer to this thread:
Cheers
Andrew -
Message 41
Posted by mgopal20 (U10696881) on Thursday, 20th December 2007
The biggest thing Pearl Harbor did for America in the short term was uniting us with a single purpose. In fact I don鈥檛 think we鈥檝e ever been so united before not even during the American Revolution when we were fighting the then seen as, tyrannical and oppressive British.
The people of America have traditionally been isolationists and I think we are still are even today. Bottom line is Americans don鈥檛 like sending their own to some far off place to die especially not for someone else鈥檚 benefit. Pearl Harbor or the possibility of such attacks is the reason our leadership uses to this day to maintain such a massive military presence abroad. We have to have troops deployed to protect ourselves from all the people who want to hurt us.
One of the reasons this works is that Americans know that other people (meaning pretty much everyone else) hate us. People hate us today because we鈥檙e seen as number one or we seem the top dog and that makes everyone gun for us. I think though that other countries especially European countries have always hated us. Our doing way with nobility and royalty rubbed too many people back in Europe the wrong way and that long instilled hatred, disregard or malevolence (or whatever) for us is deeply entrenched in the European psyche or so it seems to me.
America does not trust most of the rest of the world to have our back or even to try and not hurt us. There are very few countries that I would consider being truly solid allies to us. In fact the entire Iraq war only happened because the leadership convinced people early on that Saddam Hussein was developing platforms that could attack us with chemical/biological/nuclear weapons. It also showed just whom we could count on when the fighting did start. The people won鈥檛 forget that even if most us thought we should never be there in the first place.
Pearl Harbor in the long run was a wake up call for Americans. Even though we didn鈥檛 want to play with the rest of the world the world wasn鈥檛 going to leave us alone. It was an act that forced us as a country to grow up and take notice of global affairs. Though many including me think we have gone way overboard with the whole involving ourselves with global affairs but that is another discussion.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.