A Day That Will Live In Infamy

[Shangas]

I think it's because most people don't know bugger-all about the Sino-Japanese war which started in 1937.

They associate "WWII" with 1939, and that any year before 1939 was bathed in sunshine, happiness and bouncing bunnies.

 

[vintageTink]

Don't forget gin-flavored unicorns.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Completely unrelated, but your last comment made me wonder if 9/11 has yet to find a place in school history textbooks...

When it does it will be heavily downplayed. We've already got the media referring to the 9-11 "Tragedy" rather than attack. A fatal car accident is a tragedy but is that in the same category? Antics with semantics. As it is, in some textbooks WWII only takes up a few pages.

 

[Stearmen]

The Japanese actually attacked Kota Bharu, British Malaya first, dropping the first bomb at 00:25 on December 8th. That is what is confusing, China is on the other side of the date line, so that was actually, 06:25 December 7th, Hawaiian time. Pearl Harbour was attacked at 7:50 local time. Japan, also attacked Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, Wake Island, Guam, and Midway, all on the other side of the date line, so all on the 8th, but actually on the 7th American time. The Philippines were also supposed to be bombed, but weather over Formosa was bad, and the Japanese were six hours behind schedule.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I think it's because most people don't know bugger-all about the Sino-Japanese war which started in 1937.

They associate "WWII" with 1939, and that any year before 1939 was bathed in sunshine, happiness and bouncing bunnies.

I can assure you that most Americans don't associate the years leading up to its entrance into WWII, the pits of the Great Depression, as happy days.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think it's because most people don't know bugger-all about the Sino-Japanese war which started in 1937.

They associate "WWII" with 1939, and that any year before 1939 was bathed in sunshine, happiness and bouncing bunnies.

At least in the United States, if it didn't directly affect us, it didn't happen. That's why you still have swaggering yahoos who will look an Englishman in the eye and say "If it wun't for us, yew'd be speakin' German today, limey-boy." Never mind 20-odd-million dead Russians who had a little something to do with winning the war.

As far as this type is concerned, the war began with Pearl Harbor. They never heard of Manchuria, Nanking, Shanghai, or any other of the atrocities committed by Japan against the Chinese and Koreans, because they just don't care about anyone who isn't a 'Murican. And that, I believe, is an atrocity in itself.

I've known about the horrors of the Sino-Japanese war ever since I was old enough to read a book or look at double-page photo spreads in back issues of Life magazine. And no, I didn't learn about them in school. Japan's role in the war was bookended by Pearl Harbor and the atom bomb, and that was about it. I suspect some of those aforementioned yahoos have something to do with approving the textbooks sold in the US.

 

[Shangas]

At least in the United States, if it didn't directly affect us, it didn't happen. That's why you still have swaggering yahoos who will look an Englishman in the eye and say "If it wun't for us, yew'd be speakin' German today, limey-boy." Never mind 20-odd-million dead Russians who had a little something to do with winning the war.

As far as this type is concerned, the war began with Pearl Harbor. They never heard of Manchuria, Nanking, Shanghai, or any other of the atrocities committed by Japan against the Chinese and Koreans, because they just don't care about anyone who isn't a 'Murican. And that, I believe, is an atrocity in itself.

I don't know what it is exactly, but I do notice a lot of those sorta attitudes on various online forums. Not necessarily HERE, but in other places (and not necessarily history forums). The ignorance, willful or otherwise, of some people, or on the other hand, the mistaken beliefs held by some people, is incredible.

These are the kinds of people who in my mind, believe that America was the Great Liberator who came riding into the War on a white horse clad in armour painted with stars and stripes, waving a great sword to save the world.

They forget that until 1941, America was largely isolationist and had little to do with the war. Beyond ending shipments to Japan, and expanding shipments to Britain, they had a fierce desire to keep OUT of the war. Charles A. Lindbergh was one particularly ardent supporter of isolationism. And with his fame, a lot of people followed suit. When the War for America DID start, he quickly tried to change his tune, but the damage to his reputation had been done...

 

[deanglen]

Pearl Harbor should be seen in its proper context -- it wasn't a "sudden unexpected strike" by any means. Americans in general had been profoundly disturbed and disgusted by Imperial Japan's policy for years, especially since the atrocities committed by the Japanese in China in 1937, which were well-documented in the press and newsreels of the time. Organized boycotts of Japanese goods and relief campaigns on behalf of the Chinese had been common since then, and there was a sense that war with Japan was inevitable. The particular nature of the attack was a surprise -- but the fact of an attack itself was not.

The acts of the Japanese in China and Korea were every bit as horrific as those of the Nazis in Europe, and they must never be forgotten.

Meanwhile, not every American paid close attention to the events of December 7th. I once came across the 1941 diary of a nineteen-year-old girl from one of the towns near here -- and her entry for December 7th was, in its entirety, "Snowed a little. Went over to Florence's house."

Bomb one ship, we shrug. Bomb the Pacific Fleet; WAR!!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Panay_incident





dean

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Yeah..Surely if bad ole 'Murica hadn't entered the war..everything would have still worked out just fine.
HD

 

[HudsonHawk]

These are the kinds of people who in my mind, believe that America was the Great Liberator who came riding into the War on a white horse clad in armour painted with stars and stripes, waving a great sword to save the world.

I know of no one like that. Though I know several folks who grew up in Soviet-bloc countries who were shocked to learn, in graduate school, that the US even participated in WWII.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The Firsters wanted just that scenario. They figured the Germans and the Russians would end up annihilating each other, and the world would be rid of the Nazis and the Bolsheviks all at once, or that the Germans would win and we could reach an accomodation with them because of our "shared Aryan birthright," to directly quote Herr von Lindbergh. (Except, of course, for those of us who aren't Aryan.) And the British Empire would be destroyed or left in a shambles along the way, which would have made the Coughlinites and the Silver Shirts happy.

It didn't work out that way, however. The British proved a lot braver and more resilient than the Firsters expected them to be, and the Russians a lot more resistant to annihilation. American entry into the war was inevitable and necessary to ensure that Hitler would have to continue fighting on two fronts, but I don't think Marshal Zhukov would have agreed that the Americans won it all by themselves.

 

[Foxer55]

LizzieMaine,

At least in the United States, if it didn't directly affect us, it didn't happen. That's why you still have swaggering yahoos who will look an Englishman in the eye and say "If it wun't for us, yew'd be speakin' German today, limey-boy." Never mind 20-odd-million dead Russians who had a little something to do with winning the war.

And why not? It was England and France who set the stage for WWII with the WWI armistice and League of Nations and then refused to hold Germany accountable for remilitarizing while they plundered the German nation and economy with war reparations. WWII was just WWI, Part B. It was their problem and they should have dealt with it. The Brits and French were just whistling in the dark. We washed our hands of it after WWI. Not to mention, the U.S. generally had isolationist tendencies growing out of its history. I wouldn't give the Russians much credit for anything other than defending themselves. They may have beat Germany but their performance before and after WWII (let alone WWI) is nothing to be proud of.

 

[Foxer55]

Shangas,

These are the kinds of people who in my mind, believe that America was the Great Liberator who came riding into the War on a white horse clad in armour painted with stars and stripes, waving a great sword to save the world.

America was more than the Great Liberator. Where in history have you seen a nation engage in conquest or victory over other nations without plundering them? When necessary, America gave far beyond its share of the fighting and then went on to provide succor to every combatant, perpetrator or not. The Marshall Plan was an enormously generous and brilliantly political act that eventually returned the combatants to better than pre-war conditions. America promoted peace and civility as much as possible where possible in an effort to prevent further conflagrations. That is not common international behavior and, unfortunately, it seems America today has forgotten its own moral precedents and responsibilities.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I wouldn't give the Russians much credit for anything other than defending themselves.

I'm sure those 20 million dead Russians appreciate the credit.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Shangas,



America was more than the Great Liberator. Where in history have you seen a nation engage in conquest or victory over other nations without plundering them? When necessary, America gave far beyond its share of the fighting and then went on to provide succor to every combatant, perpetrator or not. The Marshall Plan was an enormously generous and brilliantly political act that eventually returned the combatants to better than pre-war conditions. America promoted peace and civility as much as possible where possible in an effort to prevent further conflagrations. That is not common international behavior and, unfortunately, it seems America today has forgotten its own moral precedents and responsibilities.

Whatever elaborate term or description one wants to apply, I object to the stereotype of Americans as not being self-aware. We have our faults, like anyone, but it's trendy among non-Americans to view any recognition by Americans of their culture or achievment as unbridled jingoism. It's not only false, but highly offensive. But then, we seem to be fine with doing the dirty work. It's one of our collective character strengths, actually.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think the real issue is that too many people don't know the difference between jingoism and patriotism.

A jingoist says "My country, right or wrong."

A patriot says "My country -- let's right the wrongs."

 

[Guttersnipe]

I'm sure those 20 million dead Russians appreciate the credit.

It is much to your credit, Lizzie, that you continue to remind folks that the ultimate victory in WWII would not have been possible without the contribution of all the Allied Powers: China, the U.K. (in including all the Commonwealth nations), the European governments in exile for the invaluable coordination with their countrymen (and countrywomen) in various resistance organizations, and of course, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists and Mao's Communists fought the Japanese to a stalemate in China. Try as they might, the Japanese couldn't gain the upper hand. As late as 1945, a million highly experienced and well-equipped Japanese troops were still tied up in China. But for the Chinese contribution, these troops would have been used during Japan's 1941 offensives and to buttress defense later in the war.

Similarly, while a Soviet victory in Russia was still very uncertain in 1941 -- although, the December/January Soviet counteroffensive was a telling sign of things to come -- in the winter of 1942/43, while U.S. forces were still taking their first baby steps in Tunisia, the Soviets broke the back of the German armed forces. Could the western Allies have liberated France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Norway without this contribution? Maybe yes, maybe no. But certainly it would have been much tougher and more costly.

 

[Foxer55]

HudsonHawk,

Whatever elaborate term or description one wants to apply, I object to the stereotype of Americans as not being self-aware. We have our faults, like anyone, but it's trendy among non-Americans to view any recognition by Americans of their culture or achievement as unbridled jingoism. It's not only false, but highly offensive. But then, we seem to be fine with doing the dirty work. It's one of our collective character strengths, actually.

Unfortunately, this seems to apply as well to a lot of Americans these days.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It is much to your credit, Lizzie, that you continue to remind folks that the ultimate victory in WWII would not have been possible without the contribution of all the Allied Powers: China, the U.K. (in including all the Commonwealth nations), the European governments in exile for the invaluable coordination with their countrymen (and countrywomen) in various resistance organizations, and of course, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

It's interesting to note that there was very little talk in 1945 of "America won the war!" The credit for victory went to "The Allies", or more commonly "the United Nations." The modern "we did it all" cult seems to owe more to baby-boomer boys playing with their G. I. Joes in the fifties and sixties than it does to those who actually fought the war. There were an awful lot of American soldiers pushing into Germany in the winter of '44-'45 who were very much looking forward to shaking hands with the Russians who were pushing in from the other side.

 

[Foxer55]

Guttersnipe,

It is much to your credit, Lizzie, that you continue to remind folks that the ultimate victory in WWII would not have been possible without the contribution of all the Allied Powers: China, the U.K. (in including all the Commonwealth nations), the European governments in exile for the invaluable coordination with their countrymen (and countrywomen) in various resistance organizations, and of course, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists and Mao's Communists fought the Japanese to a stalemate in China. Try as they might, the Japanese couldn't gain the upper hand. As late as 1945, a million highly experienced and well-equipped Japanese troops were still tied up in China. But for the Chinese contribution, these troops would have been used during Japan's 1941 offensives and to buttress defense later in the war.

Similarly, while a Soviet victory in Russia was still very uncertain in 1941 -- although, the December/January Soviet counteroffensive was a telling sign of things to come -- in the winter of 1942/43, while U.S. forces were still taking their first baby steps in Tunisia, the Soviets broke the back of the German armed forces. Could the western Allies have liberated France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Norway without this contribution? Maybe yes, maybe no. But certainly it would have been much tougher and more costly.

My objection to this observation is that some of the countries you mention seem to have either been in the fight for their own benefit or used it as a starting point for their own agenda. They seem to have learned nothing from the experience and their behavior since WWII is just as despicable as their behavior before WWII. Ultimately, they failed the war - that is, they abdicated and did not fight the peace and reconciliation battle. Consequently, I offer little praise.