Lies they told you in history class

thevillageidiot13

New member
Sep 9, 2009
295
0
0
Treblaine said:
thevillageidiot13 said:
Brown_Coat117 said:
C. Cain said:
Brown_Coat117 said:
Well they really didn't explain the why just that it happend. So like I said not a lie per say
And noone questioned it? I mean it's kind of a big deal. Also, technically it is a lie, a lie by omission. oO
Well obviously I questioned because I took that time to know.

The thing about schools is that they have to start teaching from somewhere. Yes I would have liked if they would have mentioned the embargo on Japan. How do you explain the embargo on Japan when you don't explain their own brutal empire building, how they went from detaining German prisoners in WW1 to Nazi allies pre-WW2 and on and on, and how do you cram all that information into a limited time with many student who learn differently and at a different pace. I don't view it as a lie omission because because not covering the embargo didn't really change any of the fact that they taught about the attack or the result (US entering WW2.)
Well, it's a huge deal. From the moment it happened, the Americans treated it as an unprovoked act of aggression. People learned to *hate* the Japanese, because propagandists essentially left out the "embargo" stuff and focused more on the "Japanese attacked U.S. Naval Base," and the clear image the American people were left with was a barbaric, uncivilized, evil Japan that attacked bystander nations for no reason.

That's why the mass imprisonment (with no trial of any sort, I might add) of 120,000 Japanese-Americans (approximately half of them children) for a good 4 - 5 years went over so smoothly: because the American people were taught that the attack was unjustified, and, in turn, learned to hate Japanese and Japanese-American individuals with a passion.

I would argue that, by leaving out the fact that Americans (in a way) provoked the attack, the history fails to do the Japanese side of the story any form of justice. You could argue that the Japanese attack was a disproportionate retribution to a comparatively minor decision, compromising and satisfy both sides in a way. But omitting the embargo from your taught history isn't going to win you any points for being unbiased.

Also, people really, really tend to forget that it was a military base, not a civilian population. If you sign up for the Navy and don't acknowledge at least a SLIGHT possibility of getting killed during your time in the armed forces, then... I don't know what to tell you. The U.S. Navy isn't your private cruise liner with a complementary buffet. It's a war machine. They train you to fight and die for your country's government.

Then again, many historians understand that history is little more than a long chain-reaction of grievous offenses and attempted retributions, and which side you're biased towards depends on where you start the history, as you said.
On the other hand, put yourself in the shoes of John Q. Public circa 1941.

Do they think they cover such boring details as trade embargo and Japan's overseas interests? No, it's a trivial matter to them - or at least they think it is trivial - so when the news comes to them: "American Naval base attacked, Three Thousand Americans dead" you understandably flip your ever loving shit.

So when FDR makes his speech to congress (and in effect, all of America) he doesn't mention the embargo even in a trivialising way. Who knows, maybe FDR had good reason for doing this. He did not want to give his new enemy the privilege of any kind of righteous attack and didn't want to leave the impression that attacking naval bases would be a good way for dealing with embargos for two reasons:
(1) it might make future efforts at getting embargos too politically frought as they'd say "this will bring another pearl harbor on us!"
(2) he didn't want to leave America's enemies the impression that such an attack would even be interpereted as such. If Japan was trying to manipulate America to remove the embargo by a sneak attack

Shortly after Pearl Harbor, US forces were overrun in the Philippines and those who were taken alive were monstrously mistreated. Only a handful survived in a pathetic shape from years of abuse, the Japanese Army REALLY WERE monstrous to their captives. The worst cases of human experimentation were committed by the Japanese Chemical Weapons division on captured POWs and any foreign civilians they could grab.

I couldn't even read about all that happened with Unit 731

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

It gave me nightmares and I'm not the sort to get nightmares over nothing, I'm the sort who like horror movies. But this. Uuuuhhh.

Japanese internment is a tricky issue, and Americans even in the immediate post-war era certainly feel very guilty for it, however it was known to the government that Japan did have a very effective spying network on the West Coast of the United States while German Espionage in America was almost non-existent. It was a secret as they had broken's Japan's cypher for spy communication, but they couldn't just announce this discovery or they would just change the cypher and the advantage would be lost.

Then there is the contrast between the war in europe. There, America was clearly able to say that they were fighting against Nazism, Hitler's Germany. Many German citizens had fled from (or been forced out of) Germany with the new regime, and it was a new and scary regime not like Germany before. But how could the Americans say "no, we're not fighting all of Japan, just, err, the part that... no"

The thing was Japan was united in its war with America, it was not some new crazy regime, it's the same establishment as since generations ago. The issue was of loyalty, if a relative turns up from Japan would you report them to the police? The German Spy ring was broken by visiting German relatives and being reported, the FBI were worried the same was not happening here.
I am by no means supporting the actions of the Japanese military during World War II -- their human rights violations were outrageous. It's important, however, to make the distinction between "Japanese" and "Japanese-American." Many (approximately 60% to 70%) of the interned Japanese-Americans were second or third generation immigrants, and, as a second-generation immigrant myself, I can tell you that my loyalties are closer to my nation of birth rather than my parent's nation of origin, and if somebody put me in a shitty camp for 5 years because of a war that I had no part in provoking, I'd be pissed. It's an unjust decision and a clear violation of the Constitutional rights of Japanese-Americans (even Congress admitted it later on).

Make no mistake -- I perceive myself as an American first, and everything else second, and, because I am a second-generation immigrant myself, that is why I especially take offense to Executive Order 9066.

And, on your comment about John Q. Public, don't you think that the public SHOULD know about these things? Sure, they should be shocked by the headlines, but it's also their duty as responsible citizens to dig deeper, which they really didn't at the time. And, by leaving out facts critical to the situation in his address to Congress, isn't FDR committing a lie of omission? As horrible as the Japanese were during World War II in terms of their treatment of the Chinese and certain POWs, the fact of the matter is that many historians argue that they did, indeed, have the privilege of righteous attack and it's a fact that embargoes *are* political statements which can be met with aggression. There's no point in being a little sissy about it. By imposing an embargo on somebody, you're basically getting in their face and being like "Yeah, I just took your lunch money. What are you going to do about it?"

And if the schoolyard has taught me anything, it's that, sometimes, the little guy works up the courage to hit the bully first.

Plus, Japan wasn't trying to eliminate the embargo -- they perceived America's decision to cut off Japanese access to vital war resources as a clear message: "We (America) haven't joined the war yet, but we're definitely on the Allied side, and when we *do* join the war, we're going after you and your Nazi buddies." Japan *KNEW* that the American Naval fleet had superior force in the Pacific, and their objective in launching the Pearl Harbor attacks wasn't as an act of terrorism or anything. It was simply an attempt at leveling the playing field and striking first -- both of those are very sound military objectives.

Also, by committing his lie of omission, FDR fails to provide the American public with the whole picture, and is clearly trying to skew public support in favor of war. Whether or not those motives and objectives are noble are irrelevant to my argument -- my argument is that he (and the rest of the media) failed to provide the public with the whole story because he wanted public support for the war, and Pearl Harbor was the perfect excuse to jump in.

In case you didn't know, in the post-World-War-1 era, American isolationism was in full effect. WWI was a little bit like Vietnam in the sense that the soldiers being sent in didn't fully understand their reasons for enlisting, and after seeing the horrors of trench warfare, they came home disillusioned. While at-home propaganda had kept the civilians sheltered from the horrors of the war, as soon as the veterans came home with their stories of bloodshed and death, there was a sense of frustration in the post-WWI period. For many Americans, all they wanted from that point onwards was for the US to stay out of international politics and, most importantly, stay out of more wars. But it was clear from the beginning of WWII that FDR absolutely, positively wanted to intervene, but he basically couldn't, because there'd be Hell to pay from the voters.

The Pearl Harbor Attacks were a Godsend for FDR, and when the opportunity arose, he seized at it. He wasn't going to let petty details like embargoes or right of aggression get in the way of his objectives. But the fact of the matter is that America was largely non-interventionist and isolationist between the World Wars, and, if FDR had told the whole truth, public opinion may have drastically swung the other way. Instead, he manipulated the truth to get public support for his political objectives, and THAT is what frustrates me about his role in this whole thing.
 

Lex Hornman

New member
Jul 26, 2011
17
0
0
Nazi's where evil bastards. A Nazi was a member of the Hitlers Nazi party. Now granted few exceptions where there but most Nazi's where trailed for crimes against humanity. Also Nazi party members where always had higher functions where it be the army of commercial life.

The people who where not so bad where plain germans who where not part of the nazi party. Like Normal Whermacht soldiers, or Luftwaffe pilots.

Just to clarify: The Nazi party was a political party. Nazi Germany is Germany ruled by Nazis.
Nazi Germany, still has normal nice Germans in it. Even people in Germany itself where against the nazi's.

This is why the Nazi's where evil rule generally applies. Just look at a nice WW2 movie sometimes you see Germans wearing the swastika on a red band usually around the arm. But not every German is wearing it especially Generals don't. That's because most generals where not part of the Nazi party.
 

aba1

New member
Mar 18, 2010
3,248
0
0
Dimitriov said:
That school house rock video actually made me feel physically ill: I can't remember the last time I saw such a smug self-righteous piece of... propaganda aimed directly at children.

As for the actual topic, well, I actually always found that my history classes in school were pretty good. I may be biased but I think Canada is generally pretty good at trying to teach history in the public schools, at least in the last few decades. We do have some pretty shameful things in our past, but most of those were covered in school.

That being said there is of course some necessary oversimplification of ideas in a high school history class.
I got to agree I found we always learned both sides throughout the classes though we were really big assholes when we got here we pritty much cheated the natives out of there land and got them addicted to pritty awful substances. Canadian history is boring as hell for the most part tho it has to be said which really is a great thing it means we haven't started to many half cocked wars over things that really should be talked out.
 

Housebroken Lunatic

New member
Sep 12, 2009
2,544
0
0
thevillageidiot13 said:
In case you didn't know, in the post-World-War-1 era, American isolationism was in full effect. WWI was a little bit like Vietnam in the sense that the soldiers being sent in didn't fully understand their reasons for enlisting, and after seeing the horrors of trench warfare, they came home disillusioned. While at-home propaganda had kept the civilians sheltered from the horrors of the war, as soon as the veterans came home with their stories of bloodshed and death, there was a sense of frustration in the post-WWI period. For many Americans, all they wanted from that point onwards was for the US to stay out of international politics and, most importantly, stay out of more wars. But it was clear from the beginning of WWII that FDR absolutely, positively wanted to intervene, but he basically couldn't, because there'd be Hell to pay from the voters.

The Pearl Harbor Attacks were a Godsend for FDR, and when the opportunity arose, he seized at it. He wasn't going to let petty details like embargoes or right of aggression get in the way of his objectives. But the fact of the matter is that America was largely non-interventionist and isolationist between the World Wars, and, if FDR had told the whole truth, public opinion may have drastically swung the other way. Instead, he manipulated the truth to get public support for his political objectives, and THAT is what frustrates me about his role in this whole thing.
Totally agree with you there.

FDR was pretty much solely responsible for the vicious and imperialist "world police" strategies adopted by the U.S from WWII and onwards. Everyone would've been much better off without it. An isolationist America was a happy america, and the rest of the world would've been happy leaving america like that.
 

Quigglebert

New member
Apr 13, 2011
81
0
0
aba1 said:
snip
Canadian history is boring as hell for the most part tho it has to be said which really is a great thing it means we haven't started to many half cocked wars over things that really should be talked out.
war of 1812, brilliant piece of canadian history
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Creator002 said:
In highschool, I learned Hitler was German and that Einstein was Swiss (despite the books saying otherwise).
WHAT! Einstein was born in Ulm to German Parents,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulm

Which has never been part of Switzerland and would later definitely become part of Germany. His whole formative years till adulthood were in Germany. He became a Swiss Citizen later in life due to marriage and was a German Citizen from 1914 till 1933 where he had it stripped from him by the Nazis persecution against Jews.

The fact is Albert Einstein is as German as they come, he was denied it only by the racist policies of the Hitler and his gang of thugs. Be left Germany before Hitler came to power (smart move) and never returned.
 

Housebroken Lunatic

New member
Sep 12, 2009
2,544
0
0
Lex Hornman said:
Nazi's where evil bastards. A Nazi was a member of the Hitlers Nazi party. Now granted few exceptions where there but most Nazi's where trailed for crimes against humanity. Also Nazi party members where always had higher functions where it be the army of commercial life.

The people who where not so bad where plain germans who where not part of the nazi party. Like Normal Whermacht soldiers, or Luftwaffe pilots.

Just to clarify: The Nazi party was a political party. Nazi Germany is Germany ruled by Nazis.
Nazi Germany, still has normal nice Germans in it. Even people in Germany itself where against the nazi's.

This is why the Nazi's where evil rule generally applies. Just look at a nice WW2 movie sometimes you see Germans wearing the swastika on a red band usually around the arm. But not every German is wearing it especially Generals don't. That's because most generals where not part of the Nazi party.
If you're gonna say that Nazi's were all "evil bastards" then you can pretty much include a rather hefty chunk of the members of academic circles even outside of germany at that time (that includes americans, the british, the french etc.), because the very same race-bigotry and positive views of eugenics and "racial hygiene" was, to put it bluntly, quite a big fad among the scholars of the world at that time.

It's just that Hitler and his cronies put these academic theories into full blown practice. That doesn't mean that all Nazi's knew much better though. I mean the Nazi party was (for a time) THE ONLY party in all of germany, and it included thousands of party members.

Do you really think that all of them was just "evil bastards" plain and simple? Have you no respect or consideration from where they were coming from?

I doubt you yourself would've formed any "less evil" opinions if you were in their shoes and with their social conditioning. We're talking about an era where the academic elite actually promoted and seriously discussed euthanasia and sterilisation of people with genetic defects and "racial inferiority".

I doubt you'd be in a position today to question or argue against the theories that, oh let's say, Stephen Hawking puts out in modern times. But what you have to understand is that the "Stephen Hawking's" of that time was actually promoting and condoning the very ideals that Hitler pursued. Hitler was even inspired by them to begin with. Back then, all this was "science".

And you mean to tell me that all those commoners who "bought into it" were "evil bastards" for doing so? Seriously, try to think of how it would be like in THEIR shoes, and not just see the situation through your historically biased and hindsighted views.

Writing something off as "simply being evil" is anti-intellectual and stupid. It doesn't serve to increase yours or anyone elses understanding of what actually happened. It's just a gross over-simplification with no intellectual merit.
 

Housebroken Lunatic

New member
Sep 12, 2009
2,544
0
0
Treblaine said:
Creator002 said:
In highschool, I learned Hitler was German and that Einstein was Swiss (despite the books saying otherwise).
WHAT! Einstein was born in Ulm to German Parents,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulm
Hehe, why is it that no one remembers the name of the famous German Baroque Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern Schplenden Schlitter Crasscrenbon Fried Digger Dingle Dangle Dongle Dungle Burstein von Knacker Thrasher Apple Banger Horowitz Ticolensic Grander Knotty Spelltinkle Grandlich Grumblemeyer Spelter Wasser Kürstlich Himble Eisenbahnwagen Gutenabend Bitte Einen Nürnburger Bratwürstel Gespurten mit Zweimache Luber Hundsfut Gumberaber Schönendanker Kalbsfleisch Mittelraucher von Hauptkopft of Ulm? :p

(Sorry, couldn't help myself)
 

OldRat

New member
Dec 9, 2009
255
0
0
Our teacher in grade school told us that the earth is a spheroid, not a perfect sphere, because the ice age in Finland caused such a huge sheet of ice over the country that it actually squeezed our planet a bit. No, that's not a joke, she was deadpan serious about it. She actually believed that a few kilometers thickness of ice over a fraction of a planet's surface would be enough to somehow squeeze the planed, floating in space and not actually propped against anything, down a bit.
Also that mountains came into existence due to the earth cooling off a bit and shrinking so "wrinkles" were formed.
I shit you not, my gradeschool teacher believed our little country had ruined the planet's geometry and that mountains are just wrinkles due to shrinking.

On a sidenote, she also claimed evolution was a lie because people didn't have tails. And let me just mention that teaching the evolution theory is compulsory in school, and as far as anything is really concerned, it's considered fact by our educational system. And she had the perfect rebuttal in her own opinion. Not a comprehensive research project, not even an ideological standpoint, but the absence of tails.
I seem to recall her teaching us something about the human body "burning" energy being literal and there being some sort of a fire inside us all. And probably really many things I'm happier not remembering.

In hindsight, she wasn't as good a teacher as they claimed. It might have gotten something to do with the fact she was way past her retirement age and more or less some sort of a volunteer during a teacher shortage.

My highschool history teacher was a rather opinioted jewish man, so you can probably guess how his classes concerning WW2 and suchlike went. Every German ever is a monster, in case you didn't know. A good teacher, but rather eccentric. He'd sometimes just use the lesson to talk about his fishing trips or some theater piece he'd seen or somesuch. Hell, I'll probably never forget that old man. I hear he retired right after our class.
On a sidenote, any WW2-centric tests were really easy because if you could turn it into preaching about the horrors of nazis, you got some really, really easy points.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
thevillageidiot13 said:
I am by no means supporting the actions of the Japanese military during World War II -- their human rights violations were outrageous. It's important, however, to make the distinction between "Japanese" and "Japanese-American." Many (approximately 60% to 70%) of the interned Japanese-Americans were second or third generation immigrants, and, as a second-generation immigrant myself, I can tell you that my loyalties are closer to my nation of birth rather than my parent's nation of origin, and if somebody put me in a shitty camp for 5 years because of a war that I had no part in provoking, I'd be pissed. It's an unjust decision and a clear violation of the Constitutional rights of Japanese-Americans (even Congress admitted it later on).

Make no mistake -- I perceive myself as an American first, and everything else second, and, because I am a second-generation immigrant myself, that is why I especially take offense to Executive Order 9066.

And, on your comment about John Q. Public, don't you think that the public SHOULD know about these things? Sure, they should be shocked by the headlines, but it's also their duty as responsible citizens to dig deeper, which they really didn't at the time. And, by leaving out facts critical to the situation in his address to Congress, isn't FDR committing a lie of omission? As horrible as the Japanese were during World War II in terms of their treatment of the Chinese and certain POWs, the fact of the matter is that many historians argue that they did, indeed, have the privilege of righteous attack and it's a fact that embargoes *are* political statements which can be met with aggression. There's no point in being a little sissy about it. By imposing an embargo on somebody, you're basically getting in their face and being like "Yeah, I just took your lunch money. What are you going to do about it?"

And if the schoolyard has taught me anything, it's that, sometimes, the little guy works up the courage to hit the bully first.

Plus, Japan wasn't trying to eliminate the embargo -- they perceived America's decision to cut off Japanese access to vital war resources as a clear message: "We (America) haven't joined the war yet, but we're definitely on the Allied side, and when we *do* join the war, we're going after you and your Nazi buddies." Japan *KNEW* that the American Naval fleet had superior force in the Pacific, and their objective in launching the Pearl Harbor attacks wasn't as an act of terrorism or anything. It was simply an attempt at leveling the playing field and striking first -- both of those are very sound military objectives.

Also, by committing his lie of omission, FDR fails to provide the American public with the whole picture, and is clearly trying to skew public support in favor of war. Whether or not those motives and objectives are noble are irrelevant to my argument -- my argument is that he (and the rest of the media) failed to provide the public with the whole story because he wanted public support for the war, and Pearl Harbor was the perfect excuse to jump in.

In case you didn't know, in the post-World-War-1 era, American isolationism was in full effect. WWI was a little bit like Vietnam in the sense that the soldiers being sent in didn't fully understand their reasons for enlisting, and after seeing the horrors of trench warfare, they came home disillusioned. While at-home propaganda had kept the civilians sheltered from the horrors of the war, as soon as the veterans came home with their stories of bloodshed and death, there was a sense of frustration in the post-WWI period. For many Americans, all they wanted from that point onwards was for the US to stay out of international politics and, most importantly, stay out of more wars. But it was clear from the beginning of WWII that FDR absolutely, positively wanted to intervene, but he basically couldn't, because there'd be Hell to pay from the voters.

The Pearl Harbor Attacks were a Godsend for FDR, and when the opportunity arose, he seized at it. He wasn't going to let petty details like embargoes or right of aggression get in the way of his objectives. But the fact of the matter is that America was largely non-interventionist and isolationist between the World Wars, and, if FDR had told the whole truth, public opinion may have drastically swung the other way. Instead, he manipulated the truth to get public support for his political objectives, and THAT is what frustrates me about his role in this whole thing.
Well I think FDR was right to no emphasise the embargo (it was hardly a secret, it just wasn't emphasised) as the worst thing for America would be in a war but not committed in winning the war, and winning it as fast as possible.

Fighting a total war on two fronts BOTH on opposite sides of the world required EXTRAORDINARY effort, MIND BOGGLING effort! And the government alone did not have enough clout, it depended utterly on War Bonds and public confidence. Planting the seed of doubt with the embargo is what it takes for people to justify their selfishness, that maybe they'd rather spend their money than blow it on a war-bond. Maybe they don't like how rubber and Gasoline are being rationed. Maybe we should try to negotiate with the Japanese government instead.

Japan definitely wanted a war with America but they wanted their enemy to be indecisive, divided and uncommitted. They hoped for a capitulation for certain territories, not that America would seek for and achieve absolute victory.

Again, try to comprehend the SCALE of this, the Pacific Ocean covers an entire half of the Earth, America is such a distant and manageable threat who had never fought an overseas war on such a scale before

I don't think America is the bully here, Japan was the one conquering territory and enslaving people, did they think they could keep buying American oil to fund that? Remember, this was less of an "embargo" and more of a boycott. It's not like US Navy ships surrounded Japan and refused to let any oil or iron-ore get in, it's just a collection of Nations (not just America, but UK, Dutch and Australian) refusing to sell to a country that was conquering so many countries. It was a clear message that these countries did not approve of such conquests and that to pull back from invasion then the boycott would be lifted. Only the paranoid military establishment (who could not comprehend a retreat) perceived this boycott as a "threat".

It was far from an excuse to start a war, it's not like they had no choice. They could have for example THREATENED war, or better yet, taken the hint and stopped their military expansionism. For FDR to even mention it would give their paranoid over reaction legitimacy. UK/USA/Aus/Dutch were perfectly within their rights to stop selling war-resources to a country that is invading their neighbours for personal gain.

"if FDR had told the whole truth, public opinion may have drastically swung the other way."

And it's a bloody good thing he didn't tell the whole truth or Japan's Imperial Conquests might never have been reversed!

That's politics.

The facts are available to anybody who wants them in 1941, there was no cover-up, it was no secret that there was an embargo/boycott against Japan, but that was of War material while they were invading their war across Asia. It was no stretch to say it was unprovoked, as refusing to sell ammo to a mad gunman is hardly provocation for getting shot. Provocation would be like sailing a fleet into Tokyo Harbour and firing off a few warning shots.

Japan skipped so many stages in trying to counter the embargo, there was not a gradual escalation to war, it was a sudden over-reaction because Japan refused to make any compromise when everyone saw them as in the wrong.
 

thevillageidiot13

New member
Sep 9, 2009
295
0
0
Housebroken Lunatic said:
thevillageidiot13 said:
In case you didn't know, in the post-World-War-1 era, American isolationism was in full effect. WWI was a little bit like Vietnam in the sense that the soldiers being sent in didn't fully understand their reasons for enlisting, and after seeing the horrors of trench warfare, they came home disillusioned. While at-home propaganda had kept the civilians sheltered from the horrors of the war, as soon as the veterans came home with their stories of bloodshed and death, there was a sense of frustration in the post-WWI period. For many Americans, all they wanted from that point onwards was for the US to stay out of international politics and, most importantly, stay out of more wars. But it was clear from the beginning of WWII that FDR absolutely, positively wanted to intervene, but he basically couldn't, because there'd be Hell to pay from the voters.

The Pearl Harbor Attacks were a Godsend for FDR, and when the opportunity arose, he seized at it. He wasn't going to let petty details like embargoes or right of aggression get in the way of his objectives. But the fact of the matter is that America was largely non-interventionist and isolationist between the World Wars, and, if FDR had told the whole truth, public opinion may have drastically swung the other way. Instead, he manipulated the truth to get public support for his political objectives, and THAT is what frustrates me about his role in this whole thing.
Totally agree with you there.

FDR was pretty much solely responsible for the vicious and imperialist "world police" strategies adopted by the U.S from WWII and onwards. Everyone would've been much better off without it. An isolationist America was a happy america, and the rest of the world would've been happy leaving america like that.
Well, while I agree that America was very happy as an isolationist nation, I don't agree that they should've stayed out of World War II. Certainly, international relations in the post-war World were very poorly-handled afterwards (read: the Cold War, Operation PBSUCCESS, the Vietnam War, etc.). But, for all the missteps and idiot moves our politicians made during WWII and the years afterwards, I'm very happy we contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

I *do*, however, believe that the outcome of WWII would've been the same with or without American help. The Soviet Union had already done a spectacular job of fighting off hordes of Nazis (with the help of their notorious climate, of course). Afterwards, the Nazis were incredibly weak and vulnerable and their morale was rock bottom. The US just kinda swooped in and took all the credit at the last minute.

Also, my problem isn't so much that FDR *wanted* to join the war. It's that he failed to clarify the context in which Pearl Harbor occurred, instead choosing to simply let the American public believe that it was a totally unprovoked attack. I also didn't like the fact that he basically put 120,000 Japanese-Americans in what more-or-less amounts to a prison for 4 to 5 years.

For what it's worth, though, I like that the US was able to play a part (however small, and however blown-out-of-proportion) in the defeat of the Axis Powers. At the same time, I definitely agree with you: the US *really* dropped the ball with their whole "Truman Doctrine/Containment Policy" after WWII. We could've handled our problems with the Soviet Union in a more mature way, without dragging the rest of the planet into it.
 

aba1

New member
Mar 18, 2010
3,248
0
0
Quigglebert said:
aba1 said:
snip
Canadian history is boring as hell for the most part tho it has to be said which really is a great thing it means we haven't started to many half cocked wars over things that really should be talked out.
war of 1812, brilliant piece of canadian history
it was semi interesting but for the most part it was pritty boring.
 

thevillageidiot13

New member
Sep 9, 2009
295
0
0
Treblaine said:
thevillageidiot13 said:
I am by no means supporting the actions of the Japanese military during World War II -- their human rights violations were outrageous. It's important, however, to make the distinction between "Japanese" and "Japanese-American." Many (approximately 60% to 70%) of the interned Japanese-Americans were second or third generation immigrants, and, as a second-generation immigrant myself, I can tell you that my loyalties are closer to my nation of birth rather than my parent's nation of origin, and if somebody put me in a shitty camp for 5 years because of a war that I had no part in provoking, I'd be pissed. It's an unjust decision and a clear violation of the Constitutional rights of Japanese-Americans (even Congress admitted it later on).

Make no mistake -- I perceive myself as an American first, and everything else second, and, because I am a second-generation immigrant myself, that is why I especially take offense to Executive Order 9066.

And, on your comment about John Q. Public, don't you think that the public SHOULD know about these things? Sure, they should be shocked by the headlines, but it's also their duty as responsible citizens to dig deeper, which they really didn't at the time. And, by leaving out facts critical to the situation in his address to Congress, isn't FDR committing a lie of omission? As horrible as the Japanese were during World War II in terms of their treatment of the Chinese and certain POWs, the fact of the matter is that many historians argue that they did, indeed, have the privilege of righteous attack and it's a fact that embargoes *are* political statements which can be met with aggression. There's no point in being a little sissy about it. By imposing an embargo on somebody, you're basically getting in their face and being like "Yeah, I just took your lunch money. What are you going to do about it?"

And if the schoolyard has taught me anything, it's that, sometimes, the little guy works up the courage to hit the bully first.

Plus, Japan wasn't trying to eliminate the embargo -- they perceived America's decision to cut off Japanese access to vital war resources as a clear message: "We (America) haven't joined the war yet, but we're definitely on the Allied side, and when we *do* join the war, we're going after you and your Nazi buddies." Japan *KNEW* that the American Naval fleet had superior force in the Pacific, and their objective in launching the Pearl Harbor attacks wasn't as an act of terrorism or anything. It was simply an attempt at leveling the playing field and striking first -- both of those are very sound military objectives.

Also, by committing his lie of omission, FDR fails to provide the American public with the whole picture, and is clearly trying to skew public support in favor of war. Whether or not those motives and objectives are noble are irrelevant to my argument -- my argument is that he (and the rest of the media) failed to provide the public with the whole story because he wanted public support for the war, and Pearl Harbor was the perfect excuse to jump in.

In case you didn't know, in the post-World-War-1 era, American isolationism was in full effect. WWI was a little bit like Vietnam in the sense that the soldiers being sent in didn't fully understand their reasons for enlisting, and after seeing the horrors of trench warfare, they came home disillusioned. While at-home propaganda had kept the civilians sheltered from the horrors of the war, as soon as the veterans came home with their stories of bloodshed and death, there was a sense of frustration in the post-WWI period. For many Americans, all they wanted from that point onwards was for the US to stay out of international politics and, most importantly, stay out of more wars. But it was clear from the beginning of WWII that FDR absolutely, positively wanted to intervene, but he basically couldn't, because there'd be Hell to pay from the voters.

The Pearl Harbor Attacks were a Godsend for FDR, and when the opportunity arose, he seized at it. He wasn't going to let petty details like embargoes or right of aggression get in the way of his objectives. But the fact of the matter is that America was largely non-interventionist and isolationist between the World Wars, and, if FDR had told the whole truth, public opinion may have drastically swung the other way. Instead, he manipulated the truth to get public support for his political objectives, and THAT is what frustrates me about his role in this whole thing.
Well I think FDR was right to no emphasise the embargo (it was hardly a secret, it just wasn't emphasised) as the worst thing for America would be in a war but not committed in winning the war, and winning it as fast as possible.

Fighting a total war on two fronts BOTH on opposite sides of the world required EXTRAORDINARY effort, MIND BOGGLING effort! And the government alone did not have enough clout, it depended utterly on War Bonds and public confidence. Planting the seed of doubt with the embargo is what it takes for people to justify their selfishness, that maybe they'd rather spend their money than blow it on a war-bond. Maybe they don't like how rubber and Gasoline are being rationed. Maybe we should try to negotiate with the Japanese government instead.

Japan definitely wanted a war with America but they wanted their enemy to be indecisive, divided and uncommitted. They hoped for a capitulation for certain territories, not that America would seek for and achieve absolute victory.

Again, try to comprehend the SCALE of this, the Pacific Ocean covers an entire half of the Earth, America is such a distant and manageable threat who had never fought an overseas war on such a scale before

I don't think America is the bully here, Japan was the one conquering territory and enslaving people, did they think they could keep buying American oil to fund that? Remember, this was less of an "embargo" and more of a boycott. It's not like US Navy ships surrounded Japan and refused to let any oil or iron-ore get in, it's just a collection of Nations (not just America, but UK, Dutch and Australian) refusing to sell to a country that was conquering so many countries. It was a clear message that these countries did not approve of such conquests and that to pull back from invasion then the boycott would be lifted. Only the paranoid military establishment (who could not comprehend a retreat) perceived this boycott as a "threat".

It was far from an excuse to start a war, it's not like they had no choice. They could have for example THREATENED war, or better yet, taken the hint and stopped their military expansionism. For FDR to even mention it would give their paranoid over reaction legitimacy. UK/USA/Aus/Dutch were perfectly within their rights to stop selling war-resources to a country that is invading their neighbours for personal gain.

"if FDR had told the whole truth, public opinion may have drastically swung the other way."

And it's a bloody good thing he didn't tell the whole truth or Japan's Imperial Conquests might never have been reversed!

That's politics.

The facts are available to anybody who wants them in 1941, there was no cover-up, it was no secret that there was an embargo/boycott against Japan, but that was of War material while they were invading their war across Asia. It was no stretch to say it was unprovoked, as refusing to sell ammo to a mad gunman is hardly provocation for getting shot. Provocation would be like sailing a fleet into Tokyo Harbour and firing off a few warning shots.

Japan skipped so many stages in trying to counter the embargo, there was not a gradual escalation to war, it was a sudden over-reaction because Japan refused to make any compromise when everyone saw them as in the wrong.
I definitely see your point there, and I suggest we take this discussion away from the thread. It's always very intellectually stimulating to hear others' opinions and share my own. Agreed?
 

Pegghead

New member
Aug 4, 2009
4,017
0
0
Supertegwyn said:
Pegghead said:
See at my school they taught NOTHING about Gallipoli. It was all ancient history and the Renaissance.
Nice, at my school it was pretty much the opposite. Before I took elective history (as soon as I could take it, it being basically a course that went far beyond the government standard Australian history course) the only non-Australian history I got that wasn't from my Dad or other books was a wee bit about the medieval age in year 8 (and another wee bit about ancient American civilisations the year before that).

It's just that there's so little to talk about that Gallipoli got wheeled out constantly to the point that I wanted to take all the ANZAC biscuits I could find and jam each one up Simpson's donkey's ass (as in butt ass).
 

DarkArk

New member
May 3, 2011
76
0
0
Wait, people are saying that the US oil embargo on Japan was some great moral failing and that the Japanese were justified in attacking the US because of that? This the embargo that was a response to the Japanese launching a war of aggression against China for no reason than the IJA wanted to. After details from Nanking came out, it was a moral obligation to stop sending them oil, not keep continuing. Yes, the US probably should have realized that that would have given Japan little room to politically maneuver, but that's Japan's fault and not the US's.

As for defeating Germany, you needed the USA, UK, and USSR to do it. No two of those powers would have been strong enough to conquer Germany. Saying anything else belays the facts and is nothing more than nationalistic dickwaving. No, the Soviet Union could not have done it alone, the UK did more than anyone really gives them credit for, and the US was far from useless.

Actually, I'll list one: Stalingrad was the battle that broke the Wehrmacht's back. Not in the slightest. It wasn't even the first major defeat of the Germans. That was Moscow, the largest battle in human history and it barely gets a nod in most history textbooks. The Germans regained strategic initiative after Stalingrad and a clear victory at Kursk might still have won them the war. But the eastern front still was not decisively decided until Operation Bagration destroyed Army Group Center.
 

Sean951

New member
Mar 30, 2011
650
0
0
thevillageidiot13 said:
Well, while I agree that America was very happy as an isolationist nation, I don't agree that they should've stayed out of World War II. Certainly, international relations in the post-war World were very poorly-handled afterwards (read: the Cold War, Operation PBSUCCESS, the Vietnam War, etc.). But, for all the missteps and idiot moves our politicians made during WWII and the years afterwards, I'm very happy we contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

I *do*, however, believe that the outcome of WWII would've been the same with or without American help. The Soviet Union had already done a spectacular job of fighting off hordes of Nazis (with the help of their notorious climate, of course). Afterwards, the Nazis were incredibly weak and vulnerable and their morale was rock bottom. The US just kinda swooped in and took all the credit at the last minute.

Also, my problem isn't so much that FDR *wanted* to join the war. It's that he failed to clarify the context in which Pearl Harbor occurred, instead choosing to simply let the American public believe that it was a totally unprovoked attack. I also didn't like the fact that he basically put 120,000 Japanese-Americans in what more-or-less amounts to a prison for 4 to 5 years.

For what it's worth, though, I like that the US was able to play a part (however small, and however blown-out-of-proportion) in the defeat of the Axis Powers. At the same time, I definitely agree with you: the US *really* dropped the ball with their whole "Truman Doctrine/Containment Policy" after WWII. We could've handled our problems with the Soviet Union in a more mature way, without dragging the rest of the planet into it.[/quote]

The Soviet Union was only able to turn back the Nazi's because America was sending insane amounts of supplies [http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-3670.html] over to Russia.
 

thevillageidiot13

New member
Sep 9, 2009
295
0
0
DarkArk said:
Wait, people are saying that the US oil embargo on Japan was some great moral failing and that the Japanese were justified in attacking the US because of that? This the embargo that was a response to the Japanese launching a war of aggression against China for no reason than the IJA wanted to. After details from Nanking came out, it was a moral obligation to stop sending them oil, not keep continuing. Yes, the US probably should have realized that that would have given Japan little room to politically maneuver, but that's Japan's fault and not the US's.

As for defeating Germany, you needed the USA, UK, and USSR to do it. No two of those powers would have been strong enough to conquer Germany. Saying anything else belays the facts and is nothing more than nationalistic dickwaving. No, the Soviet Union could not have done it alone, the UK did more than anyone really gives them credit for, and the US was far from useless.

Actually, I'll list one: Stalingrad was the battle that broke the Wehrmacht's back. Not in the slightest. It wasn't even the first major defeat of the Germans. That was Moscow, the largest battle in human history and it barely gets a nod in most history textbooks. The Germans regained strategic initiative after Stalingrad and a clear victory at Kursk might still have won them the war. But the eastern front still was not decisively decided until Operation Bagration destroyed Army Group Center.
I'm not saying that it was some huge moral failing on the part of the United States, and I'm not saying that the Pearl Harbor attacks were just or unjust. I'm saying that, often, people treat the attacks on Pearl Harbor as if they were utterly unjustified and essentially came out of the blue.

Was Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbor as a retaliation to US embargoes disproportionate? Yes, probably. But they *did* have their reasons, and those reasons were more complex than "they were a bunch of evil, bloodthirsty motherfuckers."
 

thevillageidiot13

New member
Sep 9, 2009
295
0
0
Sean951 said:
thevillageidiot13 said:
Well, while I agree that America was very happy as an isolationist nation, I don't agree that they should've stayed out of World War II. Certainly, international relations in the post-war World were very poorly-handled afterwards (read: the Cold War, Operation PBSUCCESS, the Vietnam War, etc.). But, for all the missteps and idiot moves our politicians made during WWII and the years afterwards, I'm very happy we contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

I *do*, however, believe that the outcome of WWII would've been the same with or without American help. The Soviet Union had already done a spectacular job of fighting off hordes of Nazis (with the help of their notorious climate, of course). Afterwards, the Nazis were incredibly weak and vulnerable and their morale was rock bottom. The US just kinda swooped in and took all the credit at the last minute.

Also, my problem isn't so much that FDR *wanted* to join the war. It's that he failed to clarify the context in which Pearl Harbor occurred, instead choosing to simply let the American public believe that it was a totally unprovoked attack. I also didn't like the fact that he basically put 120,000 Japanese-Americans in what more-or-less amounts to a prison for 4 to 5 years.

For what it's worth, though, I like that the US was able to play a part (however small, and however blown-out-of-proportion) in the defeat of the Axis Powers. At the same time, I definitely agree with you: the US *really* dropped the ball with their whole "Truman Doctrine/Containment Policy" after WWII. We could've handled our problems with the Soviet Union in a more mature way, without dragging the rest of the planet into it.
The Soviet Union was only able to turn back the Nazi's because America was sending insane amounts of supplies [http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-3670.html] over to Russia.[/quote]

Yes, but, regardless, comparing the sacrifices Russia made in the fight against the Axis Powers to the sacrifices the U.S. made is like comparing a tank to a Styrofoam cup.

If your implication was that the Soviet Union should somehow give America some of the credit for Allied success on the Eastern Front, then I reject your argument. Just because your Mom buys you football cleats, doesn't mean you should give her credit for winning the game for you. Should you thank her? Yes. Did she do any of the actual work that went into the victory? No.
 

DarkArk

New member
May 3, 2011
76
0
0
thevillageidiot13 said:
Was Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbor as a retaliation to US embargoes disproportionate? Yes, probably.
There's no 'probably' about it. When you launch a war of blind aggression and then get boycotted of essential military materials, that doesn't give you any justification to go war against the nations boycotting you.

They had a reason but their reason was they felt they were in too deep to back out now. That's not a good reason.