december 7, 1941 national pearl harbor remembrance day 75th year
It is really sad how so many have no idea what today is.
How have you made that determination?
Talking to people under 20. I'm a teacher, if I have a quiz on this day I will make it an extra credit question. It is a good class when 5 out of 30 know Pearl Harbor happened today.
Youd be shocked at their knowledge (or lack of) of 20th century history. Ten you'd know those clips of Late Show Jay-Walking are actually real.
I feel like it's because it was Hawaii and it was/is so geographically separated from the rest of the country. People can't visit the site easily and it wasn't near large cities. Will the same thing happen when the 75th anniversary of 9/11 occurs or because it's NY, will it be more prevalent in the annals of history?
I have a different impression. To me there seem to be a lack of interest for anything that happened before their time. A lot of their 20th century knowledge seems lacking.. I've only ever been in low-income schools, but based off questions and conversations I would say at least half the students don't even know what century the civil war occurred, Bill Clinton was president (hopefully after this election they would do better), what century we became a nation. I'm talking about half of the kids couldn't even give a correct answer within 100 years. Its really sad. But these were schools in high poverty places like south-central LA where there is a lot more for them to worry about.
I think it's fairly natural for kids to be disinterested in history when they are young. I was always interested but was an outlier. As you get older, interest grows. Wars before WWII are less accessible for kids because footage only exists in a limited way for the Great War and really nothing before. That does make it more difficult in today's world.
I didn't even watch the news til I was 17, it took the Iraq war to get me engaged. As far as WWII goes, I am sorry to admit that I knew sod all about it until a couple of years ago when I happened to watch Band of Brothers and the Pacific. As Ireland wasn't involved, it's not something that's really talked about here. I have since developed enormous interest in it though and do my best to make up for my years of ignorance
Why did Ireland decide to stay neutral when the threat was so close?
Ha, it's complicated! We were never under threat from Germany though, even if they did accidentally drop a bomb on us one night. As a relatively new state at the time, we quite wisely decided to stay out of it. The British had killed enough of our people, we weren't about to go out and lose more fighting alongside them. That's the blunt answer but also the honest one. Like I said though, it's complicated
I think it boils down to....the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And the British relationship with Ireland was not good.
december 7, 1941 national pearl harbor remembrance day 75th year
It is really sad how so many have no idea what today is.
How have you made that determination?
Talking to people under 20. I'm a teacher, if I have a quiz on this day I will make it an extra credit question. It is a good class when 5 out of 30 know Pearl Harbor happened today.
Youd be shocked at their knowledge (or lack of) of 20th century history. Ten you'd know those clips of Late Show Jay-Walking are actually real.
I feel like it's because it was Hawaii and it was/is so geographically separated from the rest of the country. People can't visit the site easily and it wasn't near large cities. Will the same thing happen when the 75th anniversary of 9/11 occurs or because it's NY, will it be more prevalent in the annals of history?
I have a different impression. To me there seem to be a lack of interest for anything that happened before their time. A lot of their 20th century knowledge seems lacking.. I've only ever been in low-income schools, but based off questions and conversations I would say at least half the students don't even know what century the civil war occurred, Bill Clinton was president (hopefully after this election they would do better), what century we became a nation. I'm talking about half of the kids couldn't even give a correct answer within 100 years. Its really sad. But these were schools in high poverty places like south-central LA where there is a lot more for them to worry about.
I think it's fairly natural for kids to be disinterested in history when they are young. I was always interested but was an outlier. As you get older, interest grows. Wars before WWII are less accessible for kids because footage only exists in a limited way for the Great War and really nothing before. That does make it more difficult in today's world.
I didn't even watch the news til I was 17, it took the Iraq war to get me engaged. As far as WWII goes, I am sorry to admit that I knew sod all about it until a couple of years ago when I happened to watch Band of Brothers and the Pacific. As Ireland wasn't involved, it's not something that's really talked about here. I have since developed enormous interest in it though and do my best to make up for my years of ignorance
Why did Ireland decide to stay neutral when the threat was so close?
Ha, it's complicated! We were never under threat from Germany though, even if they did accidentally drop a bomb on us one night. As a relatively new state at the time, we quite wisely decided to stay out of it. The British had killed enough of our people, we weren't about to go out and lose more fighting alongside them. That's the blunt answer but also the honest one. Like I said though, it's complicated
I think it boils down to....the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And the British relationship with Ireland was not good.
Yeah I didn't want to go so far as to use that phrase but...
Man, the vets are vanishing before our eyes. If you still know a WW2 vet talk to them and be amazed by them. I wish i still had those family members in my life. Always so fascinating to discuss the war with these brave men.
While we tend to complain about silly things and crooked politicians on both sides lets remember The Battle of the Bulge. Those heroes spent Christmas and three straight weeks in the snow fighting off Hitler’s last big effort to take control of the war.
It’s understandable how for many survivors Christmas was a dark time for the rest of their lives. Having their buddies disintegrated by German 88’s.
While we tend to complain about silly things and crooked politicians on both sides lets remember The Battle of the Bulge. Those heroes spent Christmas and three straight weeks in the snow fighting off Hitler’s last big effort to take control of the war.
It’s understandable how for many survivors Christmas was a dark time for the rest of their lives. Having their buddies disintegrated by German 88’s.
My Uncle Mike was in the 99th Infantry which saw significant action at the Bulge. He was actually captured in that battle and spent the rest of the war in a German stalag.
Man, the vets are vanishing before our eyes. If you still know a WW2 vet talk to them and be amazed by them. I wish i still had those family members in my life. Always so fascinating to discuss the war with these brave men.
That was one of the many things that went through my mind when my Pop died last month. He was 96 going on 97 so you know he was among the very last of the WWII vets. He had many stories about his time in the U.S. Navy in the Solomon Islands. He was an aviation machinist mate. I once asked him which part of the airplanes he worked on and he said, "Oh, pretty much everything from the propeller to the tail." Now all I can do is recall those stories, never to hear them again.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Damn. Did you talk t him about it in depth? Cant imagine.
Yes.. my undergrad is in history so at some point, I did a very in depth interview which I recorded and transcribed. It's in the Florida historical museum today as part of the their first person historical accounts. We talked about how the Germans treated the Americans well (they didn't know he was Ukrainian (which the political arm would have considered sub-human)). They kept the Brits, French and Americans separated so shockingly Hogan's Heroes wasn't historically accurate.
My other Uncle was an island hopper in the Pacific and saw all sorts of horrible stuff at Tarawa and Wake. The marines actually thought he was KIA and sent an official to my grandmother's home saying he was lost. Then a month later, they were like... oops..found him!
I have a complicated relationship with WW2. On the one hand, I can't deny that it is an immensely interesting topic to learn about, on the other hand, I've always been bothered by it's role in glorifying war and sanitising the complicated nature of global war. It always gets boiled down to "us good, them bad, kick ass" and the reality is alot dirtier than that. It's heavily used to drum up jingoism and all perspective goes out the window. Pearl Harbor is a great example. It was a small attack on a military base that resulted in fewer than 3,000 lives lost (only a few dozen civilians) and people revere it like it was one of the most atrocious abominations ever to occur. The ramifications of that attack are undeniably massive, but it isn't so much celebrated and remembered as a momentous event of consequence, it's more remembered as this monolithic tragedy that is without parallel. Of course it was a tragedy, but put in perspective with our incursions in that war and beyond, it's a blip, a minor sortie with minimal casualty. It's this grandiosity in remembrance that grates on me. Another small example, you'd think from the lore surrounding Rosie the Riveter that women had never been a part of the workforce before the start of the war, but of course women had been getting down and dirty since the earliest beginnings of the industrial revolution. The US had an active propaganda machine to rival any in the Axis, and since we won resoundingly, the influence of that propaganda never abated. Christians that wouldn't swear on anything suddenly pledging allegiance to a flag, anti-communist fervour, etc etc.
I just wish it was easier to talk about WW2 honestly, confronting it in all it's complex ugliness without such childish pride in being the home team victors.
I have a complicated relationship with WW2. On the one hand, I can't deny that it is an immensely interesting topic to learn about, on the other hand, I've always been bothered by it's role in glorifying war and sanitising the complicated nature of global war. It always gets boiled down to "us good, them bad, kick ass" and the reality is alot dirtier than that. It's heavily used to drum up jingoism and all perspective goes out the window. Pearl Harbor is a great example. It was a small attack on a military base that resulted in fewer than 3,000 lives lost (only a few dozen civilians) and people revere it like it was one of the most atrocious abominations ever to occur. The ramifications of that attack are undeniably massive, but it isn't so much celebrated and remembered as a momentous event of consequence, it's more remembered as this monolithic tragedy that is without parallel. Of course it was a tragedy, but put in perspective with our incursions in that war and beyond, it's a blip, a minor sortie with minimal casualty. It's this grandiosity in remembrance that grates on my sense of propriety. Another small example, you'd think from the lore surrounding Rosie the Riveter that women had never been a part of the workforce before the start of the war, but of course women had been getting down and dirty since the earliest beginnings of the industrial revolution. The US had an active propaganda machine to rival any in the Axis, and since we won resoundingly, the influence of that propaganda never abated. Christians that wouldn't swear on anything suddenly pledging allegiance to a flag, anti-communist fervour, etc etc.
I just wish it was easier to talk about WW2 honestly, confronting it in all it's complex ugliness without such childish pride in being the home team victors.
I couldn't agree more. War is war and there is nothing glorious about the brutal death of thousand of people. Of all the wars, WWII was perhaps the most justifiable the U.S. has been involved in but we were also not faultless in that war.
My father loved to tell his stories about WWII and I liked hearing them because they were about his past but, though I never told him this, I much more preferred hearing about how, as a young child, he helped his mother planted vegetables during the great depression or how he and his kid friends scrounged for bits of tin, iron and other metals to sell for a few pennies and then would sneak back into the scrap yard at night, toss some of the metal back over the fence and take it back to sell again for a few cents. He had no father to provide for the family so though there was certainly no pride in the theft, it was either that or starve.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
My grandfather was there in some capacity. He passed away when I was 7 but luckily he engraved every single place he went to during World War 2 on the outside cover of his canteen.
I have a complicated relationship with WW2. On the one hand, I can't deny that it is an immensely interesting topic to learn about, on the other hand, I've always been bothered by it's role in glorifying war and sanitising the complicated nature of global war. It always gets boiled down to "us good, them bad, kick ass" and the reality is alot dirtier than that. It's heavily used to drum up jingoism and all perspective goes out the window. Pearl Harbor is a great example. It was a small attack on a military base that resulted in fewer than 3,000 lives lost (only a few dozen civilians) and people revere it like it was one of the most atrocious abominations ever to occur. The ramifications of that attack are undeniably massive, but it isn't so much celebrated and remembered as a momentous event of consequence, it's more remembered as this monolithic tragedy that is without parallel. Of course it was a tragedy, but put in perspective with our incursions in that war and beyond, it's a blip, a minor sortie with minimal casualty. It's this grandiosity in remembrance that grates on my sense of propriety. Another small example, you'd think from the lore surrounding Rosie the Riveter that women had never been a part of the workforce before the start of the war, but of course women had been getting down and dirty since the earliest beginnings of the industrial revolution. The US had an active propaganda machine to rival any in the Axis, and since we won resoundingly, the influence of that propaganda never abated. Christians that wouldn't swear on anything suddenly pledging allegiance to a flag, anti-communist fervour, etc etc.
I just wish it was easier to talk about WW2 honestly, confronting it in all it's complex ugliness without such childish pride in being the home team victors.
I couldn't agree more. War is war and there is nothing glorious about the brutal death of thousand of people. Of all the wars, WWII was perhaps the most justifiable the U.S. has been involved in but we were also not faultless in that war.
My father loved to tell his stories about WWII and I liked hearing them because they were about his past but, though I never told him this, I much more preferred hearing about how, as a young child, he helped his mother planted vegetables during the great depression or how he and his kid friends scrounged for bits of tin, iron and other metals to sell for a few pennies and then would sneak back into the scrap yard at night, toss some of the metal back over the fence and take it back to sell again for a few cents. He had no father to provide for the family so though there was certainly no pride in the theft, it was either that or starve.
I'm not torn about WWII, although there's no denying the horrors of war, regardless of the reason. Now you say "faultless", for me that depends on what you mean. I don't think we are at fault for the start of the war. Yes, our position was made clear by FDR on which side we were on. Lend-lease in the west and freezing the Japanese assets in the east probably led to the Pearl Harbor attack, but the origin of the war (not going back to Versailles) lies squarely with the Germans and Japanese. Now if you say we did not conduct ourselves with high morals at all times, I would absolutely concur with that. Gen Curtis LeMay's fire bombing campaign, as an example, is a systematic war crime. But there's no denying that the Nazi party and the Japanese military were pure evil.
I have a complicated relationship with WW2. On the one hand, I can't deny that it is an immensely interesting topic to learn about, on the other hand, I've always been bothered by it's role in glorifying war and sanitising the complicated nature of global war. It always gets boiled down to "us good, them bad, kick ass" and the reality is alot dirtier than that. It's heavily used to drum up jingoism and all perspective goes out the window. Pearl Harbor is a great example. It was a small attack on a military base that resulted in fewer than 3,000 lives lost (only a few dozen civilians) and people revere it like it was one of the most atrocious abominations ever to occur. The ramifications of that attack are undeniably massive, but it isn't so much celebrated and remembered as a momentous event of consequence, it's more remembered as this monolithic tragedy that is without parallel. Of course it was a tragedy, but put in perspective with our incursions in that war and beyond, it's a blip, a minor sortie with minimal casualty. It's this grandiosity in remembrance that grates on my sense of propriety. Another small example, you'd think from the lore surrounding Rosie the Riveter that women had never been a part of the workforce before the start of the war, but of course women had been getting down and dirty since the earliest beginnings of the industrial revolution. The US had an active propaganda machine to rival any in the Axis, and since we won resoundingly, the influence of that propaganda never abated. Christians that wouldn't swear on anything suddenly pledging allegiance to a flag, anti-communist fervour, etc etc.
I just wish it was easier to talk about WW2 honestly, confronting it in all it's complex ugliness without such childish pride in being the home team victors.
I couldn't agree more. War is war and there is nothing glorious about the brutal death of thousand of people. Of all the wars, WWII was perhaps the most justifiable the U.S. has been involved in but we were also not faultless in that war.
My father loved to tell his stories about WWII and I liked hearing them because they were about his past but, though I never told him this, I much more preferred hearing about how, as a young child, he helped his mother planted vegetables during the great depression or how he and his kid friends scrounged for bits of tin, iron and other metals to sell for a few pennies and then would sneak back into the scrap yard at night, toss some of the metal back over the fence and take it back to sell again for a few cents. He had no father to provide for the family so though there was certainly no pride in the theft, it was either that or starve.
I'm not torn about WWII, although there's no denying the horrors of war, regardless of the reason. Now you say "faultless", for me that depends on what you mean. I don't think we are at fault for the start of the war. Yes, our position was made clear by FDR on which side we were on. Lend-lease in the west and freezing the Japanese assets in the east probably led to the Pearl Harbor attack, but the origin of the war (not going back to Versailles) lies squarely with the Germans and Japanese. Now if you say we did not conduct ourselves with high morals at all times, I would absolutely concur with that. Gen Curtis LeMay's fire bombing campaign, as an example, is a systematic war crime. But there's no denying that the Nazi party and the Japanese military were pure evil.
very good analyzation of world war 2 and I agree 100%. To me the firebombing was necessary because the japanese were not surrendering. however if japan wasn't ignored during versailles who knows what would have happened; hind sight is 20/20.
I have a complicated relationship with WW2. On the one hand, I can't deny that it is an immensely interesting topic to learn about, on the other hand, I've always been bothered by it's role in glorifying war and sanitising the complicated nature of global war. It always gets boiled down to "us good, them bad, kick ass" and the reality is alot dirtier than that. It's heavily used to drum up jingoism and all perspective goes out the window. Pearl Harbor is a great example. It was a small attack on a military base that resulted in fewer than 3,000 lives lost (only a few dozen civilians) and people revere it like it was one of the most atrocious abominations ever to occur. The ramifications of that attack are undeniably massive, but it isn't so much celebrated and remembered as a momentous event of consequence, it's more remembered as this monolithic tragedy that is without parallel. Of course it was a tragedy, but put in perspective with our incursions in that war and beyond, it's a blip, a minor sortie with minimal casualty. It's this grandiosity in remembrance that grates on my sense of propriety. Another small example, you'd think from the lore surrounding Rosie the Riveter that women had never been a part of the workforce before the start of the war, but of course women had been getting down and dirty since the earliest beginnings of the industrial revolution. The US had an active propaganda machine to rival any in the Axis, and since we won resoundingly, the influence of that propaganda never abated. Christians that wouldn't swear on anything suddenly pledging allegiance to a flag, anti-communist fervour, etc etc.
I just wish it was easier to talk about WW2 honestly, confronting it in all it's complex ugliness without such childish pride in being the home team victors.
I couldn't agree more. War is war and there is nothing glorious about the brutal death of thousand of people. Of all the wars, WWII was perhaps the most justifiable the U.S. has been involved in but we were also not faultless in that war.
My father loved to tell his stories about WWII and I liked hearing them because they were about his past but, though I never told him this, I much more preferred hearing about how, as a young child, he helped his mother planted vegetables during the great depression or how he and his kid friends scrounged for bits of tin, iron and other metals to sell for a few pennies and then would sneak back into the scrap yard at night, toss some of the metal back over the fence and take it back to sell again for a few cents. He had no father to provide for the family so though there was certainly no pride in the theft, it was either that or starve.
I'm not torn about WWII, although there's no denying the horrors of war, regardless of the reason. Now you say "faultless", for me that depends on what you mean. I don't think we are at fault for the start of the war. Yes, our position was made clear by FDR on which side we were on. Lend-lease in the west and freezing the Japanese assets in the east probably led to the Pearl Harbor attack, but the origin of the war (not going back to Versailles) lies squarely with the Germans and Japanese. Now if you say we did not conduct ourselves with high morals at all times, I would absolutely concur with that. Gen Curtis LeMay's fire bombing campaign, as an example, is a systematic war crime. But there's no denying that the Nazi party and the Japanese military were pure evil.
very good analyzation of world war 2 and I agree 100%. To me the firebombing was necessary because the japanese were not surrendering. however if japan wasn't ignored during versailles who knows what would have happened; hind sight is 20/20.
LeMay also had massive firebomb campaigns in Germany. I understand teh military targets but there were untold numbers of civilians that died too. Not sure how necessary that was.
I have a complicated relationship with WW2. On the one hand, I can't deny that it is an immensely interesting topic to learn about, on the other hand, I've always been bothered by it's role in glorifying war and sanitising the complicated nature of global war. It always gets boiled down to "us good, them bad, kick ass" and the reality is alot dirtier than that. It's heavily used to drum up jingoism and all perspective goes out the window. Pearl Harbor is a great example. It was a small attack on a military base that resulted in fewer than 3,000 lives lost (only a few dozen civilians) and people revere it like it was one of the most atrocious abominations ever to occur. The ramifications of that attack are undeniably massive, but it isn't so much celebrated and remembered as a momentous event of consequence, it's more remembered as this monolithic tragedy that is without parallel. Of course it was a tragedy, but put in perspective with our incursions in that war and beyond, it's a blip, a minor sortie with minimal casualty. It's this grandiosity in remembrance that grates on my sense of propriety. Another small example, you'd think from the lore surrounding Rosie the Riveter that women had never been a part of the workforce before the start of the war, but of course women had been getting down and dirty since the earliest beginnings of the industrial revolution. The US had an active propaganda machine to rival any in the Axis, and since we won resoundingly, the influence of that propaganda never abated. Christians that wouldn't swear on anything suddenly pledging allegiance to a flag, anti-communist fervour, etc etc.
I just wish it was easier to talk about WW2 honestly, confronting it in all it's complex ugliness without such childish pride in being the home team victors.
I couldn't agree more. War is war and there is nothing glorious about the brutal death of thousand of people. Of all the wars, WWII was perhaps the most justifiable the U.S. has been involved in but we were also not faultless in that war.
My father loved to tell his stories about WWII and I liked hearing them because they were about his past but, though I never told him this, I much more preferred hearing about how, as a young child, he helped his mother planted vegetables during the great depression or how he and his kid friends scrounged for bits of tin, iron and other metals to sell for a few pennies and then would sneak back into the scrap yard at night, toss some of the metal back over the fence and take it back to sell again for a few cents. He had no father to provide for the family so though there was certainly no pride in the theft, it was either that or starve.
I'm not torn about WWII, although there's no denying the horrors of war, regardless of the reason. Now you say "faultless", for me that depends on what you mean. I don't think we are at fault for the start of the war. Yes, our position was made clear by FDR on which side we were on. Lend-lease in the west and freezing the Japanese assets in the east probably led to the Pearl Harbor attack, but the origin of the war (not going back to Versailles) lies squarely with the Germans and Japanese. Now if you say we did not conduct ourselves with high morals at all times, I would absolutely concur with that. Gen Curtis LeMay's fire bombing campaign, as an example, is a systematic war crime. But there's no denying that the Nazi party and the Japanese military were pure evil.
very good analyzation of world war 2 and I agree 100%. To me the firebombing was necessary because the japanese were not surrendering. however if japan wasn't ignored during versailles who knows what would have happened; hind sight is 20/20.
LeMay also had massive firebomb campaigns in Germany. I understand teh military targets but there were untold numbers of civilians that died too. Not sure how necessary that was.
To me it is unavoidable except for extreme cases like dresden.
I have a complicated relationship with WW2. On the one hand, I can't deny that it is an immensely interesting topic to learn about, on the other hand, I've always been bothered by it's role in glorifying war and sanitising the complicated nature of global war. It always gets boiled down to "us good, them bad, kick ass" and the reality is alot dirtier than that. It's heavily used to drum up jingoism and all perspective goes out the window. Pearl Harbor is a great example. It was a small attack on a military base that resulted in fewer than 3,000 lives lost (only a few dozen civilians) and people revere it like it was one of the most atrocious abominations ever to occur. The ramifications of that attack are undeniably massive, but it isn't so much celebrated and remembered as a momentous event of consequence, it's more remembered as this monolithic tragedy that is without parallel. Of course it was a tragedy, but put in perspective with our incursions in that war and beyond, it's a blip, a minor sortie with minimal casualty. It's this grandiosity in remembrance that grates on my sense of propriety. Another small example, you'd think from the lore surrounding Rosie the Riveter that women had never been a part of the workforce before the start of the war, but of course women had been getting down and dirty since the earliest beginnings of the industrial revolution. The US had an active propaganda machine to rival any in the Axis, and since we won resoundingly, the influence of that propaganda never abated. Christians that wouldn't swear on anything suddenly pledging allegiance to a flag, anti-communist fervour, etc etc.
I just wish it was easier to talk about WW2 honestly, confronting it in all it's complex ugliness without such childish pride in being the home team victors.
I couldn't agree more. War is war and there is nothing glorious about the brutal death of thousand of people. Of all the wars, WWII was perhaps the most justifiable the U.S. has been involved in but we were also not faultless in that war.
My father loved to tell his stories about WWII and I liked hearing them because they were about his past but, though I never told him this, I much more preferred hearing about how, as a young child, he helped his mother planted vegetables during the great depression or how he and his kid friends scrounged for bits of tin, iron and other metals to sell for a few pennies and then would sneak back into the scrap yard at night, toss some of the metal back over the fence and take it back to sell again for a few cents. He had no father to provide for the family so though there was certainly no pride in the theft, it was either that or starve.
I'm not torn about WWII, although there's no denying the horrors of war, regardless of the reason. Now you say "faultless", for me that depends on what you mean. I don't think we are at fault for the start of the war. Yes, our position was made clear by FDR on which side we were on. Lend-lease in the west and freezing the Japanese assets in the east probably led to the Pearl Harbor attack, but the origin of the war (not going back to Versailles) lies squarely with the Germans and Japanese. Now if you say we did not conduct ourselves with high morals at all times, I would absolutely concur with that. Gen Curtis LeMay's fire bombing campaign, as an example, is a systematic war crime. But there's no denying that the Nazi party and the Japanese military were pure evil.
I'm not in any way defending the German and Japanese military at the time, that's for sure.
LeMay's fire bombing campaigns: fail.
And Hiroshima, Nagasaki? I've heard all the arguments favoring the decision to nuke those cities. I still say: fail.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I have a complicated relationship with WW2. On the one hand, I can't deny that it is an immensely interesting topic to learn about, on the other hand, I've always been bothered by it's role in glorifying war and sanitising the complicated nature of global war. It always gets boiled down to "us good, them bad, kick ass" and the reality is alot dirtier than that. It's heavily used to drum up jingoism and all perspective goes out the window. Pearl Harbor is a great example. It was a small attack on a military base that resulted in fewer than 3,000 lives lost (only a few dozen civilians) and people revere it like it was one of the most atrocious abominations ever to occur. The ramifications of that attack are undeniably massive, but it isn't so much celebrated and remembered as a momentous event of consequence, it's more remembered as this monolithic tragedy that is without parallel. Of course it was a tragedy, but put in perspective with our incursions in that war and beyond, it's a blip, a minor sortie with minimal casualty. It's this grandiosity in remembrance that grates on my sense of propriety. Another small example, you'd think from the lore surrounding Rosie the Riveter that women had never been a part of the workforce before the start of the war, but of course women had been getting down and dirty since the earliest beginnings of the industrial revolution. The US had an active propaganda machine to rival any in the Axis, and since we won resoundingly, the influence of that propaganda never abated. Christians that wouldn't swear on anything suddenly pledging allegiance to a flag, anti-communist fervour, etc etc.
I just wish it was easier to talk about WW2 honestly, confronting it in all it's complex ugliness without such childish pride in being the home team victors.
I couldn't agree more. War is war and there is nothing glorious about the brutal death of thousand of people. Of all the wars, WWII was perhaps the most justifiable the U.S. has been involved in but we were also not faultless in that war.
My father loved to tell his stories about WWII and I liked hearing them because they were about his past but, though I never told him this, I much more preferred hearing about how, as a young child, he helped his mother planted vegetables during the great depression or how he and his kid friends scrounged for bits of tin, iron and other metals to sell for a few pennies and then would sneak back into the scrap yard at night, toss some of the metal back over the fence and take it back to sell again for a few cents. He had no father to provide for the family so though there was certainly no pride in the theft, it was either that or starve.
I'm not torn about WWII, although there's no denying the horrors of war, regardless of the reason. Now you say "faultless", for me that depends on what you mean. I don't think we are at fault for the start of the war. Yes, our position was made clear by FDR on which side we were on. Lend-lease in the west and freezing the Japanese assets in the east probably led to the Pearl Harbor attack, but the origin of the war (not going back to Versailles) lies squarely with the Germans and Japanese. Now if you say we did not conduct ourselves with high morals at all times, I would absolutely concur with that. Gen Curtis LeMay's fire bombing campaign, as an example, is a systematic war crime. But there's no denying that the Nazi party and the Japanese military were pure evil.
I'm not in any way defending the German and Japanese military at the time, that's for sure.
LeMay's fire bombing campaigns: fail.
And Hiroshima, Nagasaki? I've heard all the arguments favoring the decision to nuke those cities. I still say: fail.
Japan would have never surrendered. Millions upon millions would have been lost on both sides if there was an allied invasion.
I have a complicated relationship with WW2. On the one hand, I can't deny that it is an immensely interesting topic to learn about, on the other hand, I've always been bothered by it's role in glorifying war and sanitising the complicated nature of global war. It always gets boiled down to "us good, them bad, kick ass" and the reality is alot dirtier than that. It's heavily used to drum up jingoism and all perspective goes out the window. Pearl Harbor is a great example. It was a small attack on a military base that resulted in fewer than 3,000 lives lost (only a few dozen civilians) and people revere it like it was one of the most atrocious abominations ever to occur. The ramifications of that attack are undeniably massive, but it isn't so much celebrated and remembered as a momentous event of consequence, it's more remembered as this monolithic tragedy that is without parallel. Of course it was a tragedy, but put in perspective with our incursions in that war and beyond, it's a blip, a minor sortie with minimal casualty. It's this grandiosity in remembrance that grates on my sense of propriety. Another small example, you'd think from the lore surrounding Rosie the Riveter that women had never been a part of the workforce before the start of the war, but of course women had been getting down and dirty since the earliest beginnings of the industrial revolution. The US had an active propaganda machine to rival any in the Axis, and since we won resoundingly, the influence of that propaganda never abated. Christians that wouldn't swear on anything suddenly pledging allegiance to a flag, anti-communist fervour, etc etc.
I just wish it was easier to talk about WW2 honestly, confronting it in all it's complex ugliness without such childish pride in being the home team victors.
I couldn't agree more. War is war and there is nothing glorious about the brutal death of thousand of people. Of all the wars, WWII was perhaps the most justifiable the U.S. has been involved in but we were also not faultless in that war.
My father loved to tell his stories about WWII and I liked hearing them because they were about his past but, though I never told him this, I much more preferred hearing about how, as a young child, he helped his mother planted vegetables during the great depression or how he and his kid friends scrounged for bits of tin, iron and other metals to sell for a few pennies and then would sneak back into the scrap yard at night, toss some of the metal back over the fence and take it back to sell again for a few cents. He had no father to provide for the family so though there was certainly no pride in the theft, it was either that or starve.
I'm not torn about WWII, although there's no denying the horrors of war, regardless of the reason. Now you say "faultless", for me that depends on what you mean. I don't think we are at fault for the start of the war. Yes, our position was made clear by FDR on which side we were on. Lend-lease in the west and freezing the Japanese assets in the east probably led to the Pearl Harbor attack, but the origin of the war (not going back to Versailles) lies squarely with the Germans and Japanese. Now if you say we did not conduct ourselves with high morals at all times, I would absolutely concur with that. Gen Curtis LeMay's fire bombing campaign, as an example, is a systematic war crime. But there's no denying that the Nazi party and the Japanese military were pure evil.
I'm not in any way defending the German and Japanese military at the time, that's for sure.
LeMay's fire bombing campaigns: fail.
And Hiroshima, Nagasaki? I've heard all the arguments favoring the decision to nuke those cities. I still say: fail.
Japan would have never surrendered. Millions upon millions would have been lost on both sides if there was an allied invasion.
That debate, as represented by our differing views, will continue through out history, especially as almost all of those who were a part of that period of history are now gone.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I have a complicated relationship with WW2. On the one hand, I can't deny that it is an immensely interesting topic to learn about, on the other hand, I've always been bothered by it's role in glorifying war and sanitising the complicated nature of global war. It always gets boiled down to "us good, them bad, kick ass" and the reality is alot dirtier than that. It's heavily used to drum up jingoism and all perspective goes out the window. Pearl Harbor is a great example. It was a small attack on a military base that resulted in fewer than 3,000 lives lost (only a few dozen civilians) and people revere it like it was one of the most atrocious abominations ever to occur. The ramifications of that attack are undeniably massive, but it isn't so much celebrated and remembered as a momentous event of consequence, it's more remembered as this monolithic tragedy that is without parallel. Of course it was a tragedy, but put in perspective with our incursions in that war and beyond, it's a blip, a minor sortie with minimal casualty. It's this grandiosity in remembrance that grates on my sense of propriety. Another small example, you'd think from the lore surrounding Rosie the Riveter that women had never been a part of the workforce before the start of the war, but of course women had been getting down and dirty since the earliest beginnings of the industrial revolution. The US had an active propaganda machine to rival any in the Axis, and since we won resoundingly, the influence of that propaganda never abated. Christians that wouldn't swear on anything suddenly pledging allegiance to a flag, anti-communist fervour, etc etc.
I just wish it was easier to talk about WW2 honestly, confronting it in all it's complex ugliness without such childish pride in being the home team victors.
I couldn't agree more. War is war and there is nothing glorious about the brutal death of thousand of people. Of all the wars, WWII was perhaps the most justifiable the U.S. has been involved in but we were also not faultless in that war.
My father loved to tell his stories about WWII and I liked hearing them because they were about his past but, though I never told him this, I much more preferred hearing about how, as a young child, he helped his mother planted vegetables during the great depression or how he and his kid friends scrounged for bits of tin, iron and other metals to sell for a few pennies and then would sneak back into the scrap yard at night, toss some of the metal back over the fence and take it back to sell again for a few cents. He had no father to provide for the family so though there was certainly no pride in the theft, it was either that or starve.
I'm not torn about WWII, although there's no denying the horrors of war, regardless of the reason. Now you say "faultless", for me that depends on what you mean. I don't think we are at fault for the start of the war. Yes, our position was made clear by FDR on which side we were on. Lend-lease in the west and freezing the Japanese assets in the east probably led to the Pearl Harbor attack, but the origin of the war (not going back to Versailles) lies squarely with the Germans and Japanese. Now if you say we did not conduct ourselves with high morals at all times, I would absolutely concur with that. Gen Curtis LeMay's fire bombing campaign, as an example, is a systematic war crime. But there's no denying that the Nazi party and the Japanese military were pure evil.
I'm not in any way defending the German and Japanese military at the time, that's for sure.
LeMay's fire bombing campaigns: fail.
And Hiroshima, Nagasaki? I've heard all the arguments favoring the decision to nuke those cities. I still say: fail.
Japan would have never surrendered. Millions upon millions would have been lost on both sides if there was an allied invasion.
That debate, as represented by our differing views, will continue through out history, especially as almost all of those who were a part of that period of history are now gone.
On august 5th, 1945 after dropping millions of leaflets across the homeland warning of a weapon unforeseen by man, the Japanese still did not surrender and the u.s and their allies had no where else to invade. What were they to do?
I have a complicated relationship with WW2. On the one hand, I can't deny that it is an immensely interesting topic to learn about, on the other hand, I've always been bothered by it's role in glorifying war and sanitising the complicated nature of global war. It always gets boiled down to "us good, them bad, kick ass" and the reality is alot dirtier than that. It's heavily used to drum up jingoism and all perspective goes out the window. Pearl Harbor is a great example. It was a small attack on a military base that resulted in fewer than 3,000 lives lost (only a few dozen civilians) and people revere it like it was one of the most atrocious abominations ever to occur. The ramifications of that attack are undeniably massive, but it isn't so much celebrated and remembered as a momentous event of consequence, it's more remembered as this monolithic tragedy that is without parallel. Of course it was a tragedy, but put in perspective with our incursions in that war and beyond, it's a blip, a minor sortie with minimal casualty. It's this grandiosity in remembrance that grates on my sense of propriety. Another small example, you'd think from the lore surrounding Rosie the Riveter that women had never been a part of the workforce before the start of the war, but of course women had been getting down and dirty since the earliest beginnings of the industrial revolution. The US had an active propaganda machine to rival any in the Axis, and since we won resoundingly, the influence of that propaganda never abated. Christians that wouldn't swear on anything suddenly pledging allegiance to a flag, anti-communist fervour, etc etc.
I just wish it was easier to talk about WW2 honestly, confronting it in all it's complex ugliness without such childish pride in being the home team victors.
I couldn't agree more. War is war and there is nothing glorious about the brutal death of thousand of people. Of all the wars, WWII was perhaps the most justifiable the U.S. has been involved in but we were also not faultless in that war.
My father loved to tell his stories about WWII and I liked hearing them because they were about his past but, though I never told him this, I much more preferred hearing about how, as a young child, he helped his mother planted vegetables during the great depression or how he and his kid friends scrounged for bits of tin, iron and other metals to sell for a few pennies and then would sneak back into the scrap yard at night, toss some of the metal back over the fence and take it back to sell again for a few cents. He had no father to provide for the family so though there was certainly no pride in the theft, it was either that or starve.
I'm not torn about WWII, although there's no denying the horrors of war, regardless of the reason. Now you say "faultless", for me that depends on what you mean. I don't think we are at fault for the start of the war. Yes, our position was made clear by FDR on which side we were on. Lend-lease in the west and freezing the Japanese assets in the east probably led to the Pearl Harbor attack, but the origin of the war (not going back to Versailles) lies squarely with the Germans and Japanese. Now if you say we did not conduct ourselves with high morals at all times, I would absolutely concur with that. Gen Curtis LeMay's fire bombing campaign, as an example, is a systematic war crime. But there's no denying that the Nazi party and the Japanese military were pure evil.
I'm not in any way defending the German and Japanese military at the time, that's for sure.
LeMay's fire bombing campaigns: fail.
And Hiroshima, Nagasaki? I've heard all the arguments favoring the decision to nuke those cities. I still say: fail.
Japan would have never surrendered. Millions upon millions would have been lost on both sides if there was an allied invasion.
That debate, as represented by our differing views, will continue through out history, especially as almost all of those who were a part of that period of history are now gone.
On august 5th, 1945 after dropping millions of leaflets across the homeland warning of a weapon unforeseen by man, the Japanese still did not surrender and the u.s and their allies had no where else to invade. What were they to do?
Sorry, McG, I don't see that as an excuse for the horrific atrocity that was nuking all those people. Japan was on the verge of losing anyway.
But again, the debate goes on forever, each side posing the same arguments over and over.
A joke: A guy is new to prison and at dinner one guy stand up and says, "49!" and everybody breaks out laughing. Another guy stands up and say, "16!" and again, the place breaks out in laughter. So the new guy stand up and say, "32!" but not a peep out of everyone else. The new guys turns to his table mates and says, "Why didn't everyone laugh?". The guy to his right says, well, we've heard all these jokes so may times we just give them numbers. Some people just aren't good at telling jokes.
The points of this debate should just have numbers. It would make it so much easier.
12!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
But bri they didn't surrender. The only thing left was a full on invasion of the homeland which would have resulted in millions on each side getting killed.
I'm with McGruff. The casualty estimate by the US was undoubtedly inflated, but it would have been enormous regardless. Enough of our boys had died. And Japan's citizens were killing themselves when we invaded Okinawa, encouraged by the govt. The brain washed citizens believed the American devils would rape and pillage, basically what they did to Nanking. Almost half of Okinawa citizens committed suicide prior to the invasion.
But bri they didn't surrender. The only thing left was a full on invasion of the homeland which would have resulted in millions on each side getting killed.
33!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Well lets see... history is written by winners, especialy in time of wars... You suspect Japan wasn't close to surrendering, but we do not know for sure... You suspect they would have made milions of causulties, but we do not know...
During wars, both sides uses excesive violence, and in my opinion violence is never a great responce to violence, no country comes out with clean hands...
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
But bri they didn't surrender. The only thing left was a full on invasion of the homeland which would have resulted in millions on each side getting killed.
To boot... they were the aggressors.
I'm not sure, as such, that they can dictate how their chosen opponent should play. Inching up to victory should not be insisted upon.
That being said... it seems as if some military brass were itching to see what they had developed in action. Devastating weapons.
Well lets see... history is written by winners, especialy in time of wars... You suspect Japan wasn't close to surrendering, but we do not know for sure... You suspect they would have made milions of causulties, but we do not know...
During wars, both sides uses excesive violence, and in my opinion violence is never a great responce to violence, no country comes out with clean hands...
well did japan surrender after being fire bombed for months and months? some of these firebombing inflicted more deaths than the atomic bomb so why didn't they surrender after losing iwo jima and okinawa if there was nothing left except for more firebombing? using surrender percentages amongst active japanese personal in places like okinawa, iwo jima and even tarawa one can imply that the numbers of japanese deaths would be in the millions if the allies had invaded the homeland.
no one likes atomic weapons but again what were the alternatives? more fire bombings which would have causes more deaths than hiroshima and nagasaki? an armed invasion which would have resulted in millions? wait for the russians to mobilize in manchuria and then make japanese face a two front war which again would have resulted in millions of deaths?
Well lets see... history is written by winners, especialy in time of wars... You suspect Japan wasn't close to surrendering, but we do not know for sure... You suspect they would have made milions of causulties, but we do not know...
During wars, both sides uses excesive violence, and in my opinion violence is never a great responce to violence, no country comes out with clean hands...
well did japan surrender after being fire bombed for months and months? some of these firebombing inflicted more deaths than the atomic bomb so why didn't they surrender after losing iwo jima and okinawa if there was nothing left except for more firebombing? using surrender percentages amongst active japanese personal in places like okinawa, iwo jima and even tarawa one can imply that the numbers of japanese deaths would be in the millions if the allies had invaded the homeland.
no one likes atomic weapons but again what were the alternatives? more fire bombings which would have causes more deaths than hiroshima and nagasaki? an armed invasion which would have resulted in millions? wait for the russians to mobilize in manchuria and then make japanese face a two front war which again would have resulted in millions of deaths?
Apparently we do know for sure that Japan was close to surrendering. In fact, Japan had approached Stalin asking for peace, and both Truman and Churchill were aware of this no later than July 18th. It's documented in Truman's own journal, the (abbreviated) entries of which are below:
July 17, 1945:
Just spent a couple of hours with Stalin. … He’ll be in the Jap War on August 15th. Fini Japs when that comes about.
July 18, 1945 (“P.M.” refers to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill):
P.M. and I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.
I just found this out today, in a blog post by an author I follow, who is writing a novel involving aspects of WWII.
Here's a link to Truman's diary online, with the full diary entries:
Comments
It’s understandable how for many survivors Christmas was a dark time for the rest of their lives. Having their buddies disintegrated by German 88’s.
My other Uncle was an island hopper in the Pacific and saw all sorts of horrible stuff at Tarawa and Wake. The marines actually thought he was KIA and sent an official to my grandmother's home saying he was lost. Then a month later, they were like... oops..found him!
On the one hand, I can't deny that it is an immensely interesting topic to learn about, on the other hand, I've always been bothered by it's role in glorifying war and sanitising the complicated nature of global war.
It always gets boiled down to "us good, them bad, kick ass" and the reality is alot dirtier than that.
It's heavily used to drum up jingoism and all perspective goes out the window.
Pearl Harbor is a great example.
It was a small attack on a military base that resulted in fewer than 3,000 lives lost (only a few dozen civilians) and people revere it like it was one of the most atrocious abominations ever to occur.
The ramifications of that attack are undeniably massive, but it isn't so much celebrated and remembered as a momentous event of consequence, it's more remembered as this monolithic tragedy that is without parallel.
Of course it was a tragedy, but put in perspective with our incursions in that war and beyond, it's a blip, a minor sortie with minimal casualty.
It's this grandiosity in remembrance that grates on me.
Another small example, you'd think from the lore surrounding Rosie the Riveter that women had never been a part of the workforce before the start of the war, but of course women had been getting down and dirty since the earliest beginnings of the industrial revolution.
The US had an active propaganda machine to rival any in the Axis, and since we won resoundingly, the influence of that propaganda never abated. Christians that wouldn't swear on anything suddenly pledging allegiance to a flag, anti-communist fervour, etc etc.
I just wish it was easier to talk about WW2 honestly, confronting it in all it's complex ugliness without such childish pride in being the home team victors.
My father loved to tell his stories about WWII and I liked hearing them because they were about his past but, though I never told him this, I much more preferred hearing about how, as a young child, he helped his mother planted vegetables during the great depression or how he and his kid friends scrounged for bits of tin, iron and other metals to sell for a few pennies and then would sneak back into the scrap yard at night, toss some of the metal back over the fence and take it back to sell again for a few cents. He had no father to provide for the family so though there was certainly no pride in the theft, it was either that or starve.
Now if you say we did not conduct ourselves with high morals at all times, I would absolutely concur with that. Gen Curtis LeMay's fire bombing campaign, as an example, is a systematic war crime. But there's no denying that the Nazi party and the Japanese military were pure evil.
LeMay's fire bombing campaigns: fail.
And Hiroshima, Nagasaki? I've heard all the arguments favoring the decision to nuke those cities. I still say: fail.
But again, the debate goes on forever, each side posing the same arguments over and over.
A joke: A guy is new to prison and at dinner one guy stand up and says, "49!" and everybody breaks out laughing. Another guy stands up and say, "16!" and again, the place breaks out in laughter. So the new guy stand up and say, "32!" but not a peep out of everyone else. The new guys turns to his table mates and says, "Why didn't everyone laugh?". The guy to his right says, well, we've heard all these jokes so may times we just give them numbers. Some people just aren't good at telling jokes.
The points of this debate should just have numbers. It would make it so much easier.
12!
During wars, both sides uses excesive violence, and in my opinion violence is never a great responce to violence, no country comes out with clean hands...
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
I'm not sure, as such, that they can dictate how their chosen opponent should play. Inching up to victory should not be insisted upon.
That being said... it seems as if some military brass were itching to see what they had developed in action. Devastating weapons.
no one likes atomic weapons but again what were the alternatives? more fire bombings which would have causes more deaths than hiroshima and nagasaki? an armed invasion which would have resulted in millions? wait for the russians to mobilize in manchuria and then make japanese face a two front war which again would have resulted in millions of deaths?
Apparently we do know for sure that Japan was close to surrendering. In fact, Japan had approached Stalin asking for peace, and both Truman and Churchill were aware of this no later than July 18th. It's documented in Truman's own journal, the (abbreviated) entries of which are below:
July 17, 1945:
July 18, 1945 (“P.M.” refers to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill):
I just found this out today, in a blog post by an author I follow, who is writing a novel involving aspects of WWII.
Here's a link to Truman's diary online, with the full diary entries:
https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/fulltext.php?fulltextid=15