The Second World War, which ended in 1945, is still regarded as the most devastating war in human history. The war involved the greatest number of nations with all the major countries in the world playing a role in the war. The human and economic costs of the war were astronomical and most countries took decades to recover from the damaging impacts of the war.
During the war, participating nations made alliances with each other in order to bolster their positions. Countries offered financial and military assistance to their allies who were in a weak position.
The United States and China had a cordial relationship in the years heralding the war and during World War II; the two nations were allies since they were both fighting against the German led aggression in East Asia. The paper will review Chinese American relations during the World War II to show that this period provided a special stage in the relationship of these two countries.
Prewar US-China Relations
China and the US had a mostly unfavorable relationship for the better part of the 19th century. The Caucasian Americans resented the huge influx of Chinese laborers during the 1860s and they considered them culturally and racially inferior.
This led to anti-Chinese sentiments which culminated in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which was an act prohibiting Chinese immigrants from entering the US. Xiaohua observes that the discriminatory law not only ended the free immigration era in American history but it also negatively affected the future relations between China and America (40).
Relations between 1932 and 1945
The 1930s were characterized by many external attacks on the Nationalist government of China. Specifically, China experienced significant encroachment by the aggressive Japanese forces. Japan agents assassinated the Chinese warlord in Manchuria and took control of the territory under the guise of an independent state called Manchukuo, which was only recognized by Japan.
This blatant grab of Manchuria by Japan was viewed as a hostile action by the United States. However, the US did not respond forcefully since the country was still dealing with the disastrous consequences of the Great Depression. However, the Hoover administration formally protested and sent additional forces to China (Sutter 35).
The US was opposed to the establishment of exclusive spheres of influence by European powers and later Japan. The US supported the principles of free access to China and Chinese territorial integrity even as Japan endeavored to carve up Chinese territory (Sutter 16). Measures were therefore taken to limit Japans increasing dominance in East Asia and preserve Chinese integrity.
The US supported Chinese national interests and this led to the emergence of a special relationship between the two nations. Sutter notes that while China was apprehensive of US involvement in her internal affairs, Chinese officials saw American policies and practices as less aggressive than other powers (16).
Since 1927, Washington maintained a fleet in the Yangtze River to defend US treaty rights and protect American lives and property. This military presence became a symbol of American commitment to the open door in china.
The US was instrumental in the building of a more efficient Chinese Army. During World War II, US officials encouraged their Chinese allies to build a better army in order to repulse the Japanese. Xiaohua documents that a primary goal of the US was to keep China in the war in order to tie up millions of Japanese troops until the ultimate Allied victory in Europe (41).
China received financial support from the US in order to aid in her war efforts. In Asia, Japan had established herself as the economic and military powerhouse and she had been able to engage in expansionism with little Chinese opposition. The US was keen to strengthen Chinese forces in order to alter the Pacific War. The US lent China $500 million in 1942 to help improve Chinese military capabilities.
The Pearl Harbor attack was a significant event in the US-China relations. This attack resulted in an active involvement by the US as the country abandoned its policy of isolationism and she took major action in response to Japanese action (Schaller 34).
While she had previously restricted her involvement to providing material support to the war efforts, the attack officially brought the US into the war and troops were committed to fight the Axis alliance.
After this attack, American sympathy for the Chinese grew to unprecedented levels. The Americans began to view the Chinese as a people who had been bravely resisting Japanese aggression for years (Xiaohua 47). The American press developed a positive image of the Chinese who were portrayed as valiant fighters against Japanese aggression.
These pro-China sentiments culminated in the visit to the US and a subsequent address to congress by the Chinese First Lady, Mme. Chiang in 1943. The war relations led to a change in American attitudes towards the Chinese. Since the US and China were officially allies in the war against the German led Axis Alliance, Americans were urged to treat the Chinese with the justice and equality they deserved.
Because of this wave of enthusiasm fostered by the war, a bill to grant the Chinese rights to entry and citizenship in the US was introduced and calls made to repeal the Chinese Exclusion Acts (Xiaohua 51).
The relationship between the two countries increased Chinas international prestige. Specifically, the US aided China in her quest to achieve the status of Great Power on a global stage (Shen and Mong 478).
The Roosevelt administration embarked on a strategy aimed at promoting China as a Great Power at par with other European powers. It was hoped that such an elevation should help to promote peace and prosperity in Eastern Asia. Because of these efforts, China took over the position of East Asian power and continued to exercise influence in the region even after the war.
Discussion and Conclusion
Bilateral relations between China and the US have varied through the decades from hostile to cooperative. The period between 1932 and 1945 was characterized by a cooperative relationship between the two countries.
The United States and China enjoyed a cordial relationship during this the war period with the two making a coalition to counter the forces of the Axis alliance. This cooperation was beneficial and it contributed to the defeat of Japan.
This paper set out to analyze the relationship between the United States and China during the Second World War. To this end, the paper has demonstrated that WW II led to the formation of a special wartime alliance between the two countries with the US adopting new foreign policies that were favorable to China.
The US made major contributions to China in an attempt to deter Japanese dominance in the region. This wartime cooperation led to better diplomatic relationships between the two nations.
Works Cited
Schaller, Michael. The U.S. Crusade in China: 1938 1945. NY: Columbia University Press, 1979.
Shen, Simon and Mong Cheung. Reshaping nationalism: Chinese intellectual response towards Sino-American and Sino-Japanese relations in the twenty-first century . Pacific Review 20.4 (2007): 475-497. Web.
Xiaohua Ma. The Sino-American Alliance during World War II and the Lifting of the Chinese Exclusion Acts . American Studies International 38.2 (2000): 39-62. Web.
Even in some of the prosperous nations of the world where its citizens enjoy a high standard of living, it is difficult to find people that are generally pleased with the way their politicians governed their nation. This is attributed to the complexity of the problems that political leaders have to deal with as well as the inevitable consequences of trying to manage diverse groups of people with different beliefs, interests and ideas on how to run things.
But there is another reason for the differences in opinion when it comes to governance and state presence; it can be understood through the ideologies that people use to interpret the world around them. Three of the most basic ideologies are: conservatism, socialism and liberalism. In the case of Canada its political leaders and its citizens hope to have a middle-ground and not to sway to extremes.
Conservatism is a strong belief in the capability of the individual. Those who adhere to this ideology believe that the individual is the driving force of social progress (Johnson, p.72). Although others would generally agree to this idea, conservatism is distinguished even further on the basis of how a conservative tend to view the role of the state in his or her life.
In this way of thinking the individual does not only have the right to be free this political ideology also stresses the principle that every individual should be free to ride to the top of life; to acquire wealth, prestige, and personal power; and to make use of these acquisitions as he or she deems fit (Johnson, p.72). At first glance this may seem to be a selfish view of life. Furthermore, it is a highly competitive way to live.
Much is given on individual liberties but when it comes to governance conservatism creates two major implications. First of all there is a disdain for big governments or more specifically the power of the government to interfere in the lives of the citizens.
This leads to the second implication which was summarized by political scientists in the following statement: nothing can be guaranteed in life and that all individuals are also free to fail, to stumble to the bottom, to find poverty and insignificance if they fail to make the best of the opportunities presented to them (Johnson, p.72). In other words those who had fallen on hard times should not expect any assistance from the government.
Socialism on the other hand is the belief that society and not the individual should be the center of human interaction (Johnson, p.79). This does not mean that socialists do not value liberty and human rights but in the context of the community. Everyone must work together to attain the common good.
There must also be an equal distribution of wealth and power. It also means that society must allow a central government to coordinate and regulate everything. This means greater role for the state to make an impact in the lives of people. However, this can also mean an over-reliance for government help.
In the case of Canada, the citizens are fortunate to have leaders who were able to steer the nation towards the middle-ground. It is labeled as modern liberalism. According to one commentary modern liberalism is the striving to blend the best of both worlds of conservatism and socialism.
The main goal of liberals is to create a coherent, balanced, pragmatic, yet principled understanding of socio-economic life and the purpose of government (Johnson, p.90). When conservatism and socialism were blended together to form modern liberalism it greatly benefited Canada. The positive transformation was evident after the Second World War.
Post World War II Canada
David Johnson made a good point when he questioned the lack of enthusiasm with regards to the discussion of Canadian politics when in fact Canadians enjoy a high standard of living compared to the rest of the world.
The said author even expounded on this statement by asserting that, While we may have more in common with Americans than we usually like to admit, it is generally true that few of use actually desire to live in the United States or believe that the overall living standard in that country is superior to ours (Johnson, p.28). There is a basis for this conclusion.
Canadians take pride in their health care system it is a system that is publicly administered and funded (Johnson, p.28). This ensures that all Canadians can have access to top-quality health care regardless if the individual can actually pay for the said medical services.
There are only a few nations in the world that can boast of the same service from the government. Even Canadas neighbor in the South is currently embroiled in a polarizing debate regarding their health care system. Many Americans are extremely frustrated and dissatisfied with the kind of medical assistance they are receiving from the government. This is especially true for the poor citizens of that country.
Healthcare is just the beginning, many Canadians take for granted the fact that their children have access to an effective and efficient education system that allows for primary and secondary education. All of these are financed by the provincial and federal government (Johnson, p.28).
There is more that Canadians can be proud of when it comes to quality education available for Canadian citizens. Consider for instance that a college student that meets the requirements of admission can immediately gain access to a life-enhancing education with the majority of its costs borne by the state (Johnson, p.28). There are only a few nations in the world that can make the same claim.
The icing on the cake when it comes to the government funded service is none other than the Canadian welfare system wherein the state contributes to the financial security of its senior citizens. For the working people on the other hand the government has a federal employment insurance programs that takes care of them in the event that they are unemployed.
At the same time the government has established a system wherein that does not only assure of income support but also the creation of job-related initiatives to help the unemployed get back to work.
Furthermore, there is the provincial workers compensation system that takes care of employees who were injured while doing their jobs. They can expect to receive compensation for income lost as well as injuries sustained (Johnson, p.28). Canadian citizens who fell on hard times, cannot get a job and do not have a network of support that can help them get back on their feet should be relieved that they can receive basic food, clothing, and shelter so that they would never have to die from hunger and suffer the fate of homeless people.
Hugging the Middle
It is important to stay in the middle. The Canadian government and its citizens cannot afford to swing to both extremes. If the government swings towards conservatism then the poor are left to fend for themselves. However, if it swings towards an extreme form of socialism then people are not held responsible for their actions and would demand more assistance from the government without doing their share to become a productive citizen.
Yet even if politicians and their constituents would love to be in the middle, it is clear that in the past decades the government has played a bigger role in Canada. In addition, one can argue that the policies and steps taken by the government seem to lean towards socialism. Consider for instance gun control, human rights legislation, multiculturalism policy, environmental regulation, health and safety regulation, regional equalization, and support for Canadian arts and culture.
These policies and activities point towards the idea that the government is using its resources and its influence to try to bring all citizens towards a better life instead of simply watching on the sidelines and wait for them to develop the means to increase wealth and standard of living.
The government does not turn a blind eye when people suffer and in fact the government has taken steps to ensure that most of the people are living comfortable lives.
According to another commentary the state presence is substantial in this country because, in the past, most Canadians have been supportive of a significant development and growth of the state to meet certain needs and wants through the political and governmental process (Johnson, p.29).
Nevertheless, the heightened participation of the government in Canadian society is something that is not considered to be praiseworthy for many Canadians.
There are those who are not yet satisfied with the improvements made in post World War II Canada. According to political analysts, The irony here is that, while many Canadians value a wide range of the specific policies and programs provided by Canadian governments and hold high expectations of what the state should be doing to protect and promote the quality of life for themselves and others, these same citizens are critical of & the actual institutions of the state from which they receive these services (Johnson, p.29).
This however, is a clear indication that Canada is not going towards conservatism or socialism but firmly planted in the middle.
In the 21st Century
The issue regarding political ideologies was brought to the fore recently because the Conservatives have won a majority for the first time in 23 years (Coyne, p.1). There are even political scientists who are concerned that the liberal party could no longer mount a decent challenge against the onslaught of conservatism (Whitaker, p.1). It is therefore understandable why people are questioning as to the direction that the country is heading to.
The fear that Canada is going to shift towards conservatism is unsubstantiated. The argument seems to be based on one thing only and that is on the result of the recent triumph of the Conservatives in Parliament. But if one utilizes the usual method to gauge what type of political ideology is being used to run the nation and develop policies in the process then it will reveal that Canada is still in the middle-ground not shifting towards conservatism or socialism.
This can be seen in evaluating what has been done in recent years. This does not require a great deal of work because it is easy to see that the government continues to be the central power in Canadian society. The government continues to play a vital role in the economy and security of this nation. The average Canadian citizen wakes up to the realization that the state has provided basic services that is expensive to maintain and yet the services continue up to this day because the government is still doing its responsibilities.
The health care and education system is still in place and with a generous contribution from the government to ensure that all people are safe, secure and can be assured of assistance if needed. An overview of Canadas budget for 2011 is also a major confirmation that this country is not yet controlled by elitists and powerful individuals that may see their advantage to prevent the government from establishing regulations for banking and finance.
Going back to the overview of the 2011 budget one can see that the government still plays a dominant role. Consider for instance that there is a proposed low-tax plan to ensure growth. This means that the Canadian government is taking a more pro-active role in reviving the economy. There are also steps made to support job creation (Government of Canada, p.1).
If the political climate has shifted to conservatism then the government would not spend precious resources to help struggling citizens to get back on their feet. On the contrary the Canadian government is busy spending money to enhance the guaranteed income supplement (Government of Canada, p.1). In addition the government continues to invest heavily in innovation, education and training so that Canadians have the necessary skills needed to compete in the marketplace.
Conclusion
The overwhelming success of the conservatives in Parliament was a cause for concern for those who believe that the Canadian government must continue to stay in the middle and to bring the best of both worlds and sustain a liberal form of government. The reason for doing so is that there is overwhelming evidence that Canadians are better off if the government continues to provide basic services and actively investing in things that help the average Canadian enjoy a high standard of living.
The shift towards conservatism would mean a significant decrease in spending and less participation of the government when it comes to financing and development of programs that could help those who are struggling form the effects of an economic downturn.
However, there is no substantial proof that the political system has indeed shifted towards the right. Canada continues to benefit from a strong state presence. There seems to be indication that the status quo is about to change.
The recent report regarding the national budget confirms that the government is willing to continue to spend to sustain an enviable health care and education system. Nevertheless, one has to agree that the success of the conservatives in recent years is suggestive that someday they would make their move and change core policies of government but that time has not yet come.
Those people, who want to improve own lives and achieve success in present and future, have to pay much attention to such issue like their history and be able to learn on the mistakes, made by other people from the past.
The German nation is considered to be one of the most remarkable ones due to its abilities to stir up rebellions and wars in order to demonstrate their desire to power and recognition.
Within short periods of time, this nation achieved unbelievable success and enthralled many people; however, German people did not have much time to enjoy their victories and hold their positions.
My passion to history and the role of the German nation and Hitler in particular makes me pay attention to the book by Pr. John Mosier The Blitzkrieg Myth: How Hitler and the Allies Misread The Strategic Realities of World War II and get an opportunity to learn more about the strategies, used by the Germans, and clear up what promoted their failure.
The title of this book promises to discover the reasons of why Hitler did not succeed with the chosen tactics and what strategic realities of World War II were.
The main topic of the book under discussion is the analysis of the strategy, known as Blitzkrieg or Breakthrough, as Pr. Mosier called it, its errors, and the outcomes, which led to German loss of the war. John Mosier tells about the peculiarities of armoured warfare and the strategies, connected to air bombing.
The peculiar feature of this author is his readiness to face with the sources, he may both agree and disagree with. In order to present a clear picture of German participation in the war and the reasons, which provoked these people to fight and kill, it is necessary to concentrate on various sources and perspectives and find out strengths and weaknesses of the chosen positions.
The idea of the Blitzkrieg myth was connected to the innovations in tank and airplane technologies. These innovations should cause considerable changes and rapid breakthroughs that would be able to demoralize the enemy within several days.
Mosier gives the reader a chance to rethink the events of World War II and to evaluate Hitlers attitude to the military doctrine. He, as no one else, believed in success of that breakthrough and used it for two times, in France and in Belgium. However, those two times were feeble attempts to gain victory.
John Mosier is one of the most fascinating American current academics, who prefer to deal with history, films, and English. Such preferences of this author demonstrate his variety of tastes and abilities to analyze the case from different perspectives.
Mr. Mosier got his Ph.D. in Tulane University in 1968 and presented a splendid dissertation that discovered the topic of historiography. Nowadays, he worked at the University of New Orleans and has access to numerous historical sources. His skills in editing and writing also promise that this book is written in clear and comprehensible English.
This person is not afraid of challenges and changes; his desire to investigate our history, use own points of view, and share them with the reader make him one of the most powerful writers about history and warfare.
It is not necessary to accept his standpoints and use his book as the only reliable source. The Blitzkrieg Myth is one of those secondary sources, which allow to study German strategies and to evaluate their mistakes to improve personal actions.
John Mosiers background in military and history provides him with a good chance to study World War II, German strategies and mistakes, and the environment that affected wars development.
This is why his personal approach to the subject, described in the book, lies in the idea to demonstrate own ideas and understanding of the situation concerning the place of the German nation in the war.
To understand what happened in this war, one must begin with an explanation that embraces the facts as they are known to exist, not as several generations of analysts have wished them to be (Mosier 2003, 2-3).
This approach to forget about past investigations and use own conjectures is not frequent in history and literature, this is why it should cause respect and attention of the reader.
His teaching abilities and interests in history support him and promote the development of one of the most captivating and provoking pieces of work about history and German war.
After the book by John Mosier is analysed, it turns out to be very hard to define one sentence as a strong thesis of his ideas. From the very beginning, the author admits that this work differs considerably from many other historian writings and provokes its reader to think and present own suggestions as for the events of the World War Second.
The purpose here is not a reevaluation of their careers but to suggest how our perceptions have been so decisively shaped by the blind acceptance of the breakthrough theory of military operations (Mosier 2003, 11).
These words introduce the reader a new way to perceive information and may serve as a good and strong thesis of the whole work. The Blitzkrieg Myth has many sides and controversies, and it is better to present several sources for the readers analysis and allow him/her study the material and come to certain conclusions independently.
In spite of the fact that such shortages as support of one of the most disliked generals like Montgomery and attention to Western front only can weaken the book, Mosiers notations and ideas that were not inherent to other writers strengthen it and show the reader another way to comprehend past events.
In order to support own ideas and thoughts, John Mosier uses different kinds of evidence. First of all, Mosier adds extensive notes to each chapter and leave some comments on them. He presents both types of notes: which he could agree with, and which he could argue.
All these notes are arranged properly and help to comprehend the essence of each chapter. Secondly, the author makes considerable use of numbers in order to clear up the situation and analyse the outcomes of the Blitzkrieg. The reader faces no difficulty to comprehend the material and the notes, which support authors point of view.
Even if the reader cannot comprehend why the author chooses this or that idea as the major one in the chapter, the notes and the numbers prove that the authors choice is great indeed and the reader has to re-evaluate his/her position and analyze the authors one.
Reading this book is probably one of the most fascinating events in my current education. Many books present rather different ideas as for the evaluation of the war actions and Hitler attitude to the events.
However, Mosiers The Blitzkrieg Myth presents an absolutely different position and provokes the reader to think and re-organize background knowledge about this topic.
John Mosier shows how wrong our attitude to German military doctrine can be: he tells that the Germans did not plan to use armoured spearheads in order to frighten the Allied but did prefer the broad-front strategy that implied numerous attacks to different places simultaneously.
The idea that numerous casualties prevented German success in the chosen strategy was a new one, and I got a wonderful chance to study this issue from a new perspective and a new approach.
In general, the theme of history becomes more interesting and more educative if a person makes an opportunity to evaluate the events from own perspective. Even if the chosen way contradicts the already established facts and numbers, it is not the reason to drop it.
John Mosier proves that a new approach concerning German military doctrine, the Blitzkrieg Myth, and Hitler errors is worthy of attention. The approach, taken in the book, and the material, we learnt about the Blitzkrieg Myth from other textbooks and lectures, differ considerably.
Mosier admits that it is not obligatory to regard Hitler as pure negative character as well as it is not necessary to search for some points to support Hitlers actions.
In order to study history and comprehend the essence of blitzkrieg, it is better to evaluate, analyse, and use own points of view to clear up what cause German failure and why the Blitzkrieg Myth remains to be a myth.
Reference List
Mosier, John. 2003. The Blitzkrieg Myth: How Hitler and the Allies Misread The Strategic Realities of World War II. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut is a science fiction novel which depicts the World War II and other events connected to it. George Roy Hill has shot a movie based on this novel which perfectly fits its tone.
Reading a book, we can see in the first part how Mary OHare berates Kurt Vonnegut for the intention to write a novel about the war. I can understand Mary OHares position and state that she is right in her indignation, especially if to take into account the fact that John Wayne or Frank Sinatra could be starring in the movie. To make a detailed description of the expressed opinion and to prove it, we should consider the characteristic features of the heroes and the general perception of novels which are directed at the description of different war events.
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
The main argument Mary OHare provides in her rejection of the war topic in the novel is that most of such stories idealize war, make it heroic and interesting. Of course, it is impossible to reject the war, to close eyes and imagine that it does not exist at all. War has always been and will always be, still, the written stories that show they seem to promote the idea of leading fights. The main concerns Mary OHare experiences are that those who are going to read a war story will believe that war is the way out, that it is the decision that may help solve the conflict which cannot be considered in another way.
If to assume that John Wayne and Frank Sinatra are going to be starring in the movie based on Kurt Vonneguts novel, so the anger Mary OHare expresses is more understood. John Wayne and Frank Sinatra are two old men who adore war. The depiction of the war events by such heroes may lead that the events are going to be presented as something beautiful, like a miracle. In this case, the war can be considered as the sequence of events that show who are the heroes and how bad guys die. But! War is not so great as it may seem. There are a lot of innocent people who die only because others want to have more power than they have.
Berating Kurt Vonnegut, Mary OHare understood that the depiction of war as something nice and heroic, war can come one after another. People are subjected to outside influence and if somebody says that war is good, this may lead to devastating events. If to remember the movies John Wayne starring at, it is possible to say that most of them are westerns. What is one of the main ideas in any western? It is a war! Appearing at the screens John Wayne showed that war is a norm, that people in the West live in constant possibility of war and it is a norm for them. If to predict that Kurt Vonnegut could become a hero of Kurt Vonneguts novel about war, people would also consider that war is a norm. This is the main concern of Mary OHare and the reasons for her worries.
I agree with Mary OHare that it is inadmissible to write novels about the wars as they are aimed at the promotion of the weapon conflicts. At the same time, I cannot say that the absence of such novels and movies is exactly what people need. People should know their history, they should be aware of the most essential events even though these events are bloody. The authors of the books and the film directors should just take the correct position, they should show how much grief and sorrow war brings to people.
Conclusion
For example, reading the first part of the novel, I thought that Mary OHare was right, that the story about the war is not what Kurt Vonnegut should write, but having watched the movie I have changed my mind. The movie shows the worst side of the war, it depicts death, not a simple one because it is time, but cruel and brutal. The sniped view of the randomized episodes from Billy Pilgrims life shows us his childhood, youth, and the period of war when he had to fight along with other soldiers. I want to express one idea which is not central in the novel, but which remains one of the most exciting for me and which explains why people should not afraid to write about wars.
The author of the novel points that human thinking and perception are very narrow, and a person is unable to cover the whole picture as a whole. That is why Mary OHares concerns are too high. She is sure that people have the same narrow perception as she does and if such war-lovers as John Wayne and Frank Sinatra are shot, they are going to be the reasons for people to consider the war something exciting and interesting. People are unable to see the cruelty and blood behind these personalities.
World War II, deemed as the deadliest and most expensive war, began in 1939 when Germany attacked Poland. The United States became fully engaged in the war when Japanese planes bombed Pearl Harbor on December 1941. This engagement was soon followed by a massive mobilization exercise as millions of men and women were deployed abroad while a substantial number remained at home, supporting the war in every way possible.
Women, who had previously stayed at home as housewives or held non-military jobs, were employed in factories that specialized in manufacturing war equipment such as aircrafts, ammunition, and military uniform. The women were called in to replace men who had joined the armed forces.
Americans at home took part in rationing programs to fund the war, they also bought Liberty bonds to help raise money for the war. In summary, the war was a major event that helped shape our countrys history and its effects continue to be felt today.
Role of WWII in Shaping Americas History
Boost to the Economy
The entry of the United States into WWII was a major boost to the economy that was still reeling from the effects of the Great Depression of 1930. Just ten years prior to the war, many people were jobless, however, jobs were available for almost everyone during the war.
Reports mention that nearly 17 million job openings became available, and workers got the opportunity of clearing old debts, feeding their families, and saving for the future. Availability of job opportunities at home and abroad ensured that the US economy remained s strong as it was prior to the Great Depression, and has maintained that superiority to date.
Military Power
An important outcome of the WWII was that the US came out a stronger military power than before. During the war, civilian factories were transformed and began manufacturing artillery, machine guns, aircrafts, military clothing, and bullets.
Factories that manufacture civilian clothes previously were now manufacturing army uniforms, while those manufacturing iron-based products were converted to manufacture bullets and machine guns. Every sector of the economy contributed to the war in every way possible.
Consequently, Americas military technology surpassed those of European nations and this was evident when it manufactured the worlds first atomic bomb. As a result, the end of the war ushered America as the new world superpower, overtaking Russia.
A United Country
Coming out the war, America was a more united country. The effects of the Civil War (1861-1865) and slavery had not sunk down the hearts of many Americans, however, the WWII provided a platform in which all Americans: northerners, southerners, black, white and indigenous fought side by side to defeat a common enemy. Success depended on cooperation and unity among all Americans.
The war reduced racial tensions as President Roosevelt extended federal power into areas predominantly occupied by African Americans. These areas included the Jim Crow South. Americans viewed racial discrimination as a vice that squandered resources needed to win the war abroad.
President Roosevelt mentioned that a nation facing despotism should reinforce its unity and morale by refuting at home the very theories which we are fighting abroad. (Polenberg, 1982).
Reference
Polenberg, R. (1982). One Nation Divisible: Class, Race, and Ethnicity in the United States Since 1938, 1980. Journal of American Studies, 16: 127-128.
Fascism represents a kind of a political system whereby the state possesses total power. As such, every citizen is required to work for the country as well as the government. The head of state for such a state is a dictator or some other powerful individual who uses police force and strong army to maintain law and order. Fascism was first seen in Japan during the period in which it used to export most of her goods, mostly silk and luxury items (Tsutsui, 2009).
At the beginning of the great depression, luxuries were foregone and this left Japan incapable of fueling her factories. In order to put a stop to the depression, Japan had two choices to make; invading China for some more resources or closing down their factories. During this time the Japanese government was being ruled by Emperor Hirohito and his army referred to as a diet that was slowly becoming fascists.
This permitted the military together with the factory proprietors to have great influences over the decisions of the country; thereby opting to invade China and Manchuria. It was at a later time that the Japans government began to closely conform to the Army Nationalistic objectives. Thence, as time went by, military fascism developed in japan (Tsutsui, 2009).
With control over the government and, essentially, the whole country, the army pushed Japan further and further into the pacific war and ultimately led to more war with the west. A number of other reasons contributed to this Japans military fascism and one such reason was thirst for power.
The Meiji restoration unleashed massive changes in Japan. This was a period of revolutionary modernization and as a motivation from these, came forth the desire for prestige, power and wealth as a way to redress the enforcement of unequal treaties placed upon them by the western powers during the past (Tsutsui, 2009).
Moreover, the Sino-Japanese War victory, gave Japan a first real bridgehead on the continent of Asia, forcing China to acknowledge the independence of Korea and giving up Taiwan and Liaotung peninsula (Tsutsui, 2009). However, Russia, Germany and France dissented that the intrusion of Japanese to Liaotung would stage a constant jeopardy to China thence, forced a deeply chagrined Japan to desolate the peninsula.
Furthermore, the Japanese exertions to incorporate their economy into a liberal global order became futile earlier on in the 1930s when the economies of the west that were depressed placed a hindrance upon the Japanese trade so that they could guard against the markets of their colonies. The structure of international peace that was substantiated in the League of Nations was thought of by the Japanese to have favored the nations of the west who were controlling the resources of the world.
Moreover, the west had played in a hypocritical way when they barred Japanese out-migration via the anti-Asian in-migration laws of the 1920s. These series of events caused the Japanese to deflect from democracy and indorse fascism and its extension to the japans empire (Tsutsui, 2009).
In conclusion, the slowly burning aggression of Japan was steered with frustrations with a world whose governance appeared inclined in preference of the west. The military fascism was a way of expressing the Japanese economic, power and policy dissatisfaction by the west, and it hence contributed in some ways to the rise of World War II. They charged their hardship upon the western countries and the incompetent government.
Most citizens of Japan likewise conceived that the government did almost nothing to help them, despite the fact that it stood for democracy. They therefore began to buy into what the Nationalistic patriotic societies were embracing- military strength, reconstruction and respect for autonomy. They started to join these patriotic societies and the army, consequently resulting to the rise of military fascism in pre-WWII Japan.
The memories of Japanese soldiers help people understand the gravity of war and how it affects lives of ordinary human beings. Their memories show what they felt at the time and how their actions affected their character. Japanese soldiers were indoctrinated initiated through violence because their government had a strong intent to conquer other nations by applying brute force.
Japanese recruits were forced to torture and maim their victims by their seniors to display their commitment and loyalty. This shows that many wars are waged to satisfy interests of a few selfish people in government. Torture, violence and murder are weapons of war which have been used in the past to make the oppressed populations submit to the wishes of their conquerors.
This is evident in the way Japanese recruits were prepared for their roles as soldiers. They decapitated, butchered and killed Chinese prisoners of war without any feelings of remorse, after being pushed by their seniors.1 This proves that some collective national goals can be used to harm other nations which are thought to be weak.
The massacres carried out by Japanese soldiers against Chinese prisoners of war were barbaric and traumatizing. Japan used advanced military equipment to carry out atrocities against her neighbors in Asia. This shows that a country with aggressive imperialistic policies is easily tempted to attack other nations which are weaker.
Japanese soldiers were affected psychologically after the conditioning process used by their seniors made them brutalize defenseless innocent civilians.2 This explains why they did not restrain themselves from attacking innocent civilians in China. They had been indoctrinated to believe that their actions would help their country become stronger and more powerful.
This justified their use of full scale violence against civilians of other countries. During that time, Japanese soldiers were heavily influenced by imperialistic attitudes which drove them to attack other nations.
Japanese soldiers knew what they were doing was wrong and this affected their conscience. However, military propaganda broadcasts on radio made them believe that their country was making good progress in the war. They believed they had the license to do whatever they wished against soldiers and citizens of states they had occupied. This made them become more aggressive.
They thought that by unleashing terror on defenseless prisoners of war and civilians, they were performing their patriotic duties. Japanese soldiers felt that victory in the war was going to make their country become more powerful.3 They knew that their country would have benefited heavily by exploiting natural resources of other states in the region, which were already vanquished.
Japanese soldiers thought they were highly respected by other Japanese civilians because of their willingness to defend their country. They were encouraged to use their authority to ensure citizens of conquered territories easily conformed to wishes of the Japanese government. Japanese soldiers knew they had to act strong to make citizens of conquered nations conquered nations more obedient to their Japanese masters.4
They made their prisoners perform difficult labor tasks in farms to produce food which helped sustain them in foreign lands. They failed to realize that they were being used by senior government officials to achieve their own interests.
Senior government officials were only interested in using state power to attack other neighboring countries which had a lot of natural resources. Japanese junior military officers had been manipulated to think that their participation in war would offer them positive rewards.
Bibliography
Berger, Thomas U. War, Guilt and World Politics After World War II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Cook, Haruko Taya and Theodore F. Cook. Japan At War: An Oral History. New York: The New Press, 1992.
Footnotes
1 Haruko Taya Cook & Theodore F. Cook, Japan At War: An Oral History (New York: The New Press, 1992), 41-42.
2 Ibid., 43-44.
3 Ibid., 47.
4 Thomas U, Berger, War, Guilt and World Politics After World War II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 126-128.
Winston Churchills speech has been dedicated to the analysis of the past events happened in the course of the Second World War as well as the challenges and problems arisen from constrains people had to overcome. The speech was promoted as an opposition manifest toward the tyranny, deterrence and war.
Instead, the primary focus was made on the necessity to propagandize democracy, freedom of speech, and strength of mind. Awareness of existing threats, according to Churchill, was the only way to understand and estimate the economic, political, and social situation occurred to the US and British government.
Churchills speech starts with the consideration of the past problems and challenges that people suffer from, the sacrifices they should make, as well as the solutions they should provide to overcome the consequences of military actions. In order to overcome these problems, the British politician insists on the necessity to singly out clearly the purposes, to grant simplicity of the decisions made, and declare the human rights and freedoms on the threshold of the forthcoming American Democracy.
Introducing the main features of a peaceful and democratic society, Churchill strives to advance the penetration of the British government to a more civilized community that will be accountable for their decisions and strategies within the country.
While speaking of the American government, Churchill states that it also faces similar problems in the face of the forthcoming Cold War. Particular reference has been made to the analysis of challenges connected with the development of the nuclear power that was in question after the termination of the Second World War.
The secret development of the weapons of mass structure was on the agenda during this time and, therefore, Churchill considers it a priority to keep this secret knowledge away from the International organizations. Being under the influence of war, the political and ideological activist believes that the country should be on guard on the ongoing change to stand the opposition and promote democratic policies.
The development of powerful weapon can ensure citizens safety and security from the established tyranny in the world. As Churchill reports, the societys &supreme task and duty is to guard the homes of the common people from the horrors and miseries of another war (2). In this respect, the speaker is specifically concerned with the dangers and threats that might come outside the country.
In order to overcome the challenges of war, the Britain activist also proposes to equip the United Nations Organizations with an international armed force. In addition, sheriffs and constable should also be introduced to take control of magistrates and courts. Such a position proves the necessity to proclaim the principle of liberty and human rights that constitute joint inheritance of the English-speaking world (Churchill 3). These principles are also implemented into the American Declaration of Independence that also stands the utmost freedoms and rights.
In conclusion, it can be stated that Churchill was anxious about implementing radical principles for promoting democracy, equality, security, and human rights. Overcoming the consequences of the Second World War, the British politician places a strong emphasis on the necessity to introduce greater responsibilities and duties for promoting the concepts of security and safety which is possible with the implementation of armed forces development.
Works Cited
Churchill, Winston. Sinews of Peace (Iron Curtain). Missouri: Westminster College.
History as we know only consists of the conclusions of previous historians and documentation. Whether we accept these conclusions as valid representation of the past is our own choice, and the past holds us responsible to evaluate it justly. This essay explores some of the historiography available thus on the racial prejudices that faced Americans of Japanese origins during the Second World War.
Although the WW II was a vital event to the American history, its repercussions on the American citizens is often swept under the rug of historical radar. The stories of the Japanese -Americans, as told by twenty-first century historians vary in focus and content (Chang 2).
The association between Americans and Japanese began in the late 1941 when Japan initiated an attack on the United States Naval base in Hawaiian island of Oahu forcing the US into the 2nd world war. The Japanese attack cost US 170 airplanes and about 4000 American lives. Following this attack, the then U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt signed an executive order on February 1942 fearing that the Americans of Japanese origin would assist the enemy (Japan).
The order permitted the state agencies to move thousands of Americans of Japanese origin into isolated zones where they became virtually incarcerated. In the same year, the United States War Relocation Authority set up relocation centers in six states for Americans of Japanese origin to settle during this period. The most famous of these relocation centers was the Manzanar relocation center which was situated near Lone, California (Wakatsuki 1).
In this historical paper, I will argue that the current stories asserting that racial science and eugenics are not exclusively Nazi anti-Semitic ideology, but rather a more complex transnational and multifaceted context in which these sciences must be considered.
This essay will emphasize on racial discrimination towards Japanese Americans in the United States during the 2nd World War which led to the creation of 442nd Regiment Combat Team (Comprising of Japanese American soldiers). The subject of racial identity is strong because these Japanese fought for America against their native country even after facing racial prejudice in the U.S (Chang 2-3).
Jean Wakatsukis account
In her memoir Farewell to Manzanar published in the early 70s, Jean Wakatsuki describes the lives OF Japanese Americans in the concentration camps in Manzanar following the presidential order. This memoir was adapted for a movie in the mid 70s. The book and the movie describe the lives of Jean and James family (who represent the Americans of Japanese origin) in the Manzanar camp. The story evolves around Jean who is an American Citizen by naturalization and a second -generation Japanese.
The story embarks on December 1941 when the maternal side of Jeans family was bidding farewell to their husbands who were fishermen heading to the sea. The news that Japan (their native country) had bombed U.S. (their adopted country) came as shock to Jeans grandma and Grandpa. They rushed home to destroy the Japanese artifacts fearing that that their ties with Japan might cause them trouble (Wakatsuki 3).
As the U.S. became more involved in the 2nd world war, Ko Wakatsuki (Jeans father) was taken into custody over fake charges of treason for selling oil to his native land. Jeans family was forced to shift from their home to Terminal Island where their oldest son resided.
Eventually, the President issued an order to relocate Americans of Japanese decent into relocation camps. After numerous attempts of relocating, Jeans family found themselves in Manzanar relocation camp. At the camp, the family of twelve members was given a barrack which was in a dilapidated condition (Wakatsuki 5).
Ko Wakatsuki soon joined the family, but his false incarceration left him very harsh and overpowered. Once a proud and decent man from a noble family of Samurai, he transformed into a total wreck. Humiliated by his arrest and the current situation, Papa Wakatsuki changed into an alcoholic forgetting his family honor.
Regardless of his noticeable blemish of pride and haughtiness, Ko was a very fine man who had numerous skills. Having left his native country for U.S. in search of the American dream, Ko was totally destroyed by being held captive in a concentration camp (Wakatsuki 23).
The conditions in the camp gradually wore down the family unit. Ko drank excessively and habitually abused his wife. The older children were forced to take jobs within and outside the concentration camp.
The little ones entertained themselves by loitering around the camp unsupervised. Gradually, Wakatsuki family became used to the life in the concentration camp. Two years later, the Americans of Japanese origins were forced to take an oath of allegiance or else be sent back to their native country. The oath was a show of loyalty and willingness to fight the common enemy (Japan). Woody and Ko filled the form reluctantly.
Just after the family had settled very well in the concentration camp when the government had availed the social facilities, the camp was closed down. The majority of the Americans of Japanese decent were left without homes and in abject poverty. They were forced to go back to a society that had lost trust in them and detested them. They had lost everything when they were relocated into the concentration camps and at this moment they owned nothing (Wakatsuki 53).
Jeans story leaves us with a lot of questions and dilemma on the true American identity. According to the story, Jeannes Japanese identity clashes with her American identity since (according to the public perception during that time) Americans and Japanese were completely different people.
This prejudice made it difficult for Jeanne to hold onto the American identity as well as maintain her native culture. At Manzanar, Jeanne was unable to maintain her American identity when she was released from the concentration camp and set free. She was also not able to retain her native (Japanese) identity.
Given that the Japanese were looked down upon by the public, maintaining American and Japanese identity became very difficult for Jeanne. Jeanne saw how the Americans were scared as a result of the 2nd world war and their justification for incarcerating the Japanese in camps. Jean also felt a lot of pain by the manner in which Americans with Japanese roots were being treated (Wakatsuki 3-4).
The non-Japanese played a major role in this story. The people who were ordered to incarcerate the Japanese or put them in the concentration camps were non-Japanese. They also included the guards and soldiers who kept vigil at the concentration camps. Even after the closure of the camp, there were non-Japanese people who had significant impact on Jeanne especially at school.
Her classmates and friend treated and viewed her differently from other American students. Even their parents viewed her very differently and were very suspicious of her. They did not allow Jeanne to join student clubs or befriend their children because she was Japanese. Jeanne became the center of attention because of her Japanese roots. She recalled numerous obnoxious memories from the non-Japanese Americans in her life (Wakatsuki 25).
Jeanne found out that instead of shunning the non-Japanese for forcing them into concentration camps, she became the main victim of detestation. She was hated by the general public because of her Japanese connection and was even associated with her native country. Following the Japanese attacks on the Americans naval bases, she was considered evil and dreadful. The public assumed that she was like Japanese U.S. was fighting and therefore directed all their anger and hatred towards her.
The situation was further worsened by the U.S. propaganda against Japan and its people. They depicted Japanese people as wicked and threateningly vindictive. The images painted by the government made the non-Japanese Americans to hate Japanese people even more. Jeanne established that the non-Japanese Americans presented their bitterness on the Japanese people even after the war came to an end (Wakatsuki 26).
Racism before and after the attack on the Pearls Harbor
According to Sahina Robert, attack on Pearl Harbor increased the already prominent racial animosity directed towards the Japanese and other Asian immigrants living in United States. This phenomenon can be traced back to the late 19th century. This animosity and fear was evident in the discriminatory laws against the Americans with Japanese origin (particularly the Issei) who were born in Japan and migrated to America.
Before the 2nd World War, the Issei were denied American citizenship and were not allowed to own land in America. They were also not permitted to marry American citizens or seek employment in some areas. In addition, there was a very strong anti-Japanese sentiment in the West (Asahina 2).
In the early 20th century, the U.S government worked out an agreement with the Japanese government. In this agreement, the Japanese citizens bound for U.S were not to be issued with passports. This accord stemmed from the Anti-Japanese groups in the state of California where there was high level of racial segregation.
Some historians attribute this legal and social prejudice to economic competition between Japan and U.S during that era. Regardless of the fact that Americans-Japanese citizens owned small parcels of land, their success in Agriculture caused fear and bitterness (Asahina 2-3).
The native farmers were too happy to see the Japanese Americans sent to the concentration camps. There was also anxiety among the White Americans at the manner in which the Japanese were gaining popularity and influence in the West Coast.
They felt that the Japanese were so different from other European groups and hence could not be assimilated in their way of life. There was a popular belief among the natives that Japanese Americans practiced strange religion, were educated in their native country and were still fond of their native country (Asahina 4).
Following the attack on the Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, the United States government started to use propaganda. Much of it touched on the racial aspect that encouraged the natives to detest the Japanese natives by comparing them to parasites and beasts rather than focusing on defeating the Japanese military.
Even the American media (during that time) depicted Japanese people as sub-humans. They referred to them as Nip , an offensive Japanese slang. Moreover, they depicted Japanese people using various offensive pictorial images such as Apes and demons (Asahina 8).
In the present day, many Americans are very much ashamed with the manner in which the U.S government and the non-Japanese treated Japanese Americans during that time. However, such kind of mistreatment enjoyed widespread popular support during that era because of the abovementioned propaganda. As a matter of fact, many people were complaining that the government was not doing enough to avert the attack. The sending off of Japanese Americans into the concentration camps was greatly influenced by how the general public portrayed them (Asahina 12).
President Roosevelts decision was largely influenced by his advisors most notably secretary of war Henry Stimson and General John Dewitt. These two were major proponents of concentration camps and were profound racists. They believed that Japanese were very likely to sponsor terrorism because it was in their blood.
The main reason given for sending the Japanese Americans to the concentration camps was because the government believed that they were still loyal to their native country and could act as spies. This was worsened by the anti-Japanese sentiments after the attack of the Pearl Harbor. The popular pressure forced the United States government to address the matter immediately and with drastic measures (Asahina 18).
Following the attack of the Pearl Harbor, there was a general belief that Americans of Japanese origins living there could have assisted the Japanese government in carrying out the attacks through the provision of intelligence.
This was among the reasons used by the government to send the Japanese Americans into the concentration camps. Regardless of the governments claim that action was necessary to avert further espionage by the enemy at that time, up to now there is no evidence linking Japanese Americans to support military repression.
The U.S intelligence also investigated the possibility of shore-to-ship signaling from the Japanese Americans. However, they did not found any evidence linking them to acts of terrorism. In addition, numerous communication devices were taken away from Japanese American homes after through search without reasonable cause. Nonetheless, these devices were also found in the homes of many Native Americans (Asahina 20).
During the war and after the incarceration of the Japanese Americans, the American public was shown video footage and pictures that justified the confinement of Japanese Americans in the concentration camps.
American movie theatres showed how the Japanese Americans were very happy in the concentration camps and were enthusiastically waiting for the American victory against the Japanese military. Majority of the media were dominated by Japanese war atrocities against the Chinese and the oppression of the Americans in Philippines. In other words, the media content was full of Japanese brutality, their viciousness and cruelty (Asahina 24).
The military personnel were shown pictures of Japanese people as fanged creatures. They were even required to watch a string of state-produced films entitled Why We Fight . These films depicted Japanese people as brutal imperialists who were up to control the world.
The official and the unofficial propaganda used in U.S during that time promoted what historical experts refer to as executionist mentality towards the Japanese people. This type of mentality seemed to rationalize the mass killing of Japanese civilian and soldiers. It is worthy to mention that this strategy was used by both sides during the World War II and on the frontlines separating the enemies and non-enemies.
Therefore, just like the American public, the American soldiers also regarded the Japanese people as subhuman and majority of them believed that killing as many Japanese as possible was a justified course to take. The Japanese people were not only discriminated because of their skin color, but were perceived as totally opposite of the American people (Asahina 25-26).
Following the attacks, any leader of the Japanese community living in U.S or anyone suspected of having links with the Japan was incarcerated. The U.S treasury also froze all the accounts of Japanese citizens living in U.S. In addition, there was a compulsory curfew on the Japanese Americans who were subjected to carrying identity cards wherever they went and their homes were searched without any warrants.
When the Japanese Americans were being sent to the concentration camps, they were instructed to carry along only a few of their possessions. Some of the American Japanese were even forced to sell all their assets and businesses for a few bucks or give them up given that they had no other option (Asahina 28).
In the concentration camps, the Japanese Americans were faced with military barracks type of housing located in isolated desert. The camps were under military surveillance and surrounded by barbed wires with guards everywhere. Social amenities were haphazardly availed and were not well built.
These facilities were frail with a lot of cracks. Insects and small but dangerous animals like snakes could find there way into homes. Some of the houses in the concentrations camps were once used as horse stalls before the relocation. The heat from the desert enhanced the unpleasant smell from the old horse manures and attracted a lot of flies (Asahina 30).
The government considered the concentration camps as temporary and therefore did not want to invest significant amount of money on them especially with the rising cost of defense during that time.
Therefore, the concentration camps lacked all kind of supplies, aid workers and some basic facilities. Adding more salts to the already agonizing wound, some families were separated from their loved ones. For instance, those who were suspected to be trouble makers or spies were placed under solitary confinement away from their friends and families (Asahina 31).
Despite of all these atrocities, majority of the Americans including the Japanese Americans believed that the only way to prove their devotion was to voluntarily move to the concentration camps and help the U.S in fighting their enemy, a sentiment that was widely spread through the media.
Japanese Americans in the concentration camps just like other Americans were also involved in the activities that supported the war effort. They were assigned jobs like making military uniforms and parachutes and were paid a little amount for doing these jobs.
Majority of them grew and canned food for their own subsistence use and send some to the troops. Factory and service jobs within the concentration camps were considered as suitable wartime occupation for the loyal Japanese Americans by the U.S government. Most people in the concentration camps joined Japanese American Citizens league to prove their loyalty to the US (Asahina 35).
The biggest contribution of the Japanese Americans came from the highly decorated Nisei Soldiers. Even before the drafting or incarceration of the Japanese Americans, many of Japanese Americans were already willing to serve their country.
More than thirty thousands Nisei soldiers fought in the 2nd world war, irrespective of the fact that many of their families were being held in the concentration camps. Most of these soldiers served in the European campaigns for fear of becoming treacherous if they served in the Pacific. Nonetheless, some of them served as translators and were taught in the U.S Military Intelligence Service Language School.
The Nisei soldiers earned several accolades for their loyalty and service to the country. Examples of Nisei soldiers are 100th battalion and 442nd Regimental Combat Team, with the latter mainly consisting of Nisei coming from the concentration camps. The 100th Battalion served in North Africa and Italy. In addition, they suffered numerous casualties and earned themselves 900Purple Heart decorations (Asahina 45).
The racism against the Japanese Americans was rampant even before the Japanese invasion on the Pearl Harbor. As a matter of fact, it is believed that the racial prejudice was one of the factors that influenced the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The extent of racism that existed between Japan and America was worse than German and American racism which existed in the 1st world war but was not prominent in the 2nd world war.
This was attributed to the fact that majority of Americans had German roots. It is significant to note that President Roosevelts order did not exclusively apply to Japanese Americans. The order also applied to German and Italian Americans who were considered as enemies and were forced to move (Asahina 48).
The work of the activists
As the war ensued, a number of U.S officials started to debate on the continued incarceration of the Japanese Americans. This was because the cost of running those camps was becoming too high for the government and the public was still in fear of the subversive acts.
The U.S Government even came up with a questionnaire to test the loyalty of the Japanese Americans in the concentration camps. These questionnaires were also used to screen out the Nisei to be drafted into the armed forces. There was a second questionnaire to test those who were not qualified for armed services.
This questionnaire was used to release the loyal Japanese Americans from the concentration camps provided that they were not going back to the west coast. The government closed down the last camp in 1946 without fully compensating those who had lost their belongings. They were only given around $50 per family or $20 per individual and fare to wherever they were moving to (Asahina 60).
In the mid 40s, the Japanese American Citizens League and American Civil Liberties Union sued the government with regard to the executive order 9066. They argued that none of those people taken to the concentration camps had ever taken part in subversive or spying activities.
A number of these cases reached the Supreme Court but the court ruled that the curfew placed on the Japanese Americans during that time was constitutional. The court stated that confinement of the Japanese Americans in the internship camps was not against the law but barred the government from preventing the interns from moving to whatever direction they preferred (Asahina 75).
However, a couple of decades later, the Japanese American Citizens League launched a campaign to secure reparation from the congress for the internment survivors, an official apology from the government and a trust fund for the children of internees. In 1980, a commission was set up by President Carter to investigate the internment and the atrocities committed against the Japanese Americans during the 2nd World War.
The commissions report, Justice Denied established that the confinement of Japanese Americans in the concentration camps was not just and urged the government to apologize to the victims, compensated the survivors 20000 dollars per head, and set up an educational trust fund as demanded by the Japanese American Citizens League to educate American Japanese children (Asahina 80).
The initial redress legislation was not presented in Congress until two years later in 1983, and was not passed until late 1980s due to lack of enough funds in the treasury and the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1946. President Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act in 1988 and lastly the demands of the commission and Japanese American Citizens League were enforced (Asahina 81-82).
The 442nd Infantry Regiment
The 442nd infantry regiment previously known as the 442nd Regimental Combat Team was a military unit composed mainly of Asian Americans particularly Japanese Americans. They fought for U.S in Europe during the 2nd World War. In spite of the fact that many of their families were held up in the concentration camps, this military unit was a force to reckon with.
They fought with exceptional distinction in Italy, Germany and France. This unit became famous and was the most decorated battalion unit in the history of the United States armed forces (Chang 2).
Before the attack on the Pearls Harbor, most of the Japanese Americans who fought in the 2nd World War were sons and daughters of the Japanese immigrants born in U.S. Later on (following the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor) they were considered as enemies and were not eligible to serve in the armed forces.
The executive order signed by President Roosevelt gave the military commanders authority to determine at their own discretion the people they deemed fit to serve in the armed forces. Although the President Roosevelts order did not particularly refer to the Americans with Japanese origin, it set up a precedent for the confinement of the Japanese Americans in the concentration camps (Chang 2).
In 1942, Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt (who was in charge of the Western Defense Command) ordered the relocation of Japanese Americans from their homes in the West Coast to the heavily guarded internment camps. In Hawaii, there was a total clampdown and blackout imposed by the government.
Majority of the Japanese Americans serving in the armed forces were relieved of active services following the order from the war department. On the same note, commanders in charge of United States army in Hawaii also decided to discharge those who were in charge of the territorial guard consisting mostly of the students from the University of Hawaii.
However, there were some soldiers particularly those in 298th and 299th infantry battalion who were retained. The group that was discharged from their duties petitioned to be allowed to help in the war effort. Their petition was granted and they were given various complementary jobs in the military (Chang 3-4).
The army general in Hawaii was getting nervous about the allegiance of the Japanese American soldiers in case of another attack on the U.S soil, and therefore asked the war department to restructure the 298th and 299th and relocate them from the West Coast. The move was granted by the war department and the provisional regiment set sail for training.
They first landed in Oakland, California and two days later were sent to Wisconsin camp. This battalion was later designated as 100th infantry battalion. The group performed excellently in training that the U.S government changed their mind and allowed Japanese Americans back into active armed service. This led to the formation of the Japanese American Combat Unit (Chang 4).
The government started the recruitment of Japanese Americans into the unit but first they had to fill the loyalty questionnaire. Over 75% of those who filled the questionnaire were willing to serve in the U.S armed forces and swore allegiance to the U.S. The U.S war department then enlisted about 1500 volunteers from the west coast and 3000 from the mainland. Over 10,000 men turned out from the Hawaiian island.
However, Japanese Americans from the mainland received the announcement with less enthusiasm since majority of those men who were qualified for the armed service were being held in the concentration camp. This forced the war department to revise the quota and enlisted an additional 2900 from West Coast and a further 1500 from the mainland. Only 1256 from the mainland were willing to join the forces.
Ultimately, the army decided to draft 1500 men from Hawaii and 800 men from the mainland. This led to the formation of the 422nd infantry regimental Combat Team which was announced by President Roosevelt. During the announcement, the president made it known to the public that Americanism was not a matter of race or descent (Chang 4-5).
Conclusion
Racism against the Japanese government started way far before the attack on the Pearls Harbor. However, it increased after the attack and completely changed the way the general public viewed the Japanese people. Racial prejudice and hatred was enhanced through official and unofficial propaganda mostly spread by the government and its machineries.
Japanese Americans were subjected to unwarranted sufferings, atrocities and even incarceration in the concentration camps. These facilities were frail with a lot of cracks. Insects and small but dangerous animals like snakes could find their way into homes. Some of the houses in the concentrations camps were once used as horse stalls before the relocation.
The heat from the desert enhanced the unpleasant smell from the old horse manures and attracted a lot of flies In spite of all these problems and racial discrimination, the Japanese American Combat units were willing to fight for their country even though their families were held up in the internment camps. This story highlights the meaning of true Americanism and American identity.
Works Cited
Asahina, Robert. Just Americans: How Japanese Americans Won a War at Home and Abroad, The Story of the 100th Battalion/442d Regimental Combat Team in World War II. New York: Gotham Books, 2006.
Chang, Thelma. I Can Never Forget: Men of the 100th/442nd. Honolulu: Sigi Productions, 1991.
Wakatsuki, Houston J. Farewell To Manzanar: A True Story of Japanese American Experience During and After the World War II Internment. New York: Laurel Leaf, 1983.
The nuclear weapon is the most powerful and destructive weapon ever invented by mankind. This weapon played a role in ending the Second World War since the Japanese forces surrendered when atomic bombs were dropped on their cities. The impact of these bombs was devastating and mass casualties were experienced at the sites of the attacks.
For the first time in history, the world was introduced to the nuclear bomb and its destructive capabilities. Following this spectacular display of the annihilating capability of the nuclear weapon, the major world powers saw nuclear armament as being integral to their military strength.
Due to the immense military power that ownership of nuclear weapons gave to a particular country, the post WWII years were followed by a global nuclear arms race. The two main countries in competition for nuclear superiority were the US and the Soviet Union. This paper will set out to discuss the nuclear arms race with a focus on what caused this phenomenon and the impacts that it had.
The Nuclear Bomb
Research into nuclear weapons was conducted by scientists from the US during the 1930s. In 1939, the US government commissioned a project that was aimed at producing the worlds first atomic bomb. This project, known as the Manhattan Project took place with the support of Canada and the US and it was able to produce two types of atomic bombs utilizing uranium and plutonium.
The first successful detonation of a nuclear device was the Trinity Test conducted on 16 July 1945 in New Mexico (Carnesale et al., 52). This test demonstrated that the nuclear bomb could be deployed in battle and the US President Harry S. Truman authorized the weapons use against Japan.
In the years immediately following WWII, the US was the sole world nuclear superpower. This country had a monopoly on the knowledge of nuclear weapon production and it had already successfully tested its nuclear weapons and perfected its delivery system as could be witnessed from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The US hoped to maintain its exclusivity as the only nuclear capable nation in the world.
While the US and the Soviet Union had been allies during the war, they had great differences and the two countries did not trust each other. The adversity between the US and the Soviet Union began in the late 1940s and the US took steps to protect itself from any Soviet aggression.
Carnesale et al. explain that by 1949, the US had a number of strategic bombers carrying targeting critical Soviet installations located in the UK (78).
These bombers were equipped with nuclear warheads capable of causing significant damage to the Soviet Union. To counter US nuclear superiority, the Soviet Union maintained a strong military presence in Europe and its conventional army was capable of overwhelming the whole of Europe.
Well aware of the superiority that nuclear weapons gave the US, the Soviets engaged in intensive efforts to develop their own nuclear weapons. These efforts were aided by reports from Soviet spies who had been following the progress of US scientists during the Manhattan Project.
The Soviets achieved nuclear capability in 1949 and they demonstrated their capability by detonating a test bomb on August of the same year. This bomb, named First Lightning closely resembled the American bomb dropped on Nagasaki. These similarities were because the bomb was built using details obtained from the infamous nuclear spies Theodore Hall and Klaus Fuchs.
This demonstration of Soviet nuclear capacity effectively started the nuclear arms race. Buzan and Herring explain that while the US was previously confident in its position as the global nuclear power, the advances by the Soviets proved that other nations were taking steps to develop nuclear weaponry (81).
The Nuclear Arms Race
Buzan and Herring define an arms race as the most extreme manifestation of an arms dynamic between the militaries of different states (81). For an arms race to occur there must be at least two parties engaged in a conscious rivalry with each other. In the post WWII years, the US and the Soviet Union were the main antagonists. The two powers were aware of each others nuclear ambitions and sought to outdo each other.
The nuclear arms race began in full force following the detonation of the atomic bomb First Lightning by the Soviet Union (Carnesale et al. 77). This development brought the Soviets closer to matching the nuclear strength of the US. However, the Truman administration wanted to ensure that it was the major nuclear power in the world.
Therefore, in response to the development of an Atomic bomb by the Soviet Union, the US administration approved research into the development of a hydrogen bomb in 1949 and increased funding for nuclear research and development.
In 1952, the US had successfully created the powerful hydrogen bomb and this weapon was tested on November 1952. Another hydrogen bomb of a 14.8 megaton yield was made and tested by the US in 1954 firmly reinforcing the nuclear superiority of the US in the world.
Up until the mid 1950s, the US nuclear superiority was unchallenged as the US demonstrated qualitative and quantitative superiority to its nearest rival, the Soviet Union.
This unchallenged nuclear superiority status was offset in 1955 when the Soviet Union detonated a 1.6 megaton hydrogen bomb (Holloway 131). Before this detonation, the US had been the only nuclear weapon state in possession of the immensely powerful hydrogen bombs.
Nuclear weapons started to take priority over conventional weapons from 1955. Before this period, the Soviet Union has relied on its conventional forces in Europe to counterbalance US military strength. However, the two sides started to increase their reliance on tactical nuclear weapons between 1955 and 1965.
Tactical nuclear weapons were low-yield nuclear weapons that could be employed on the battlefield in relatively close proximity to friendly forces (French 199). The US administration hoped to reduce its military spending in Europe by using nuclear weapons in the European theatre as a deterrent to Soviet aggression.
Tactical nuclear weapons presented the best means through which NATO could counter the Soviets superiority in conventional forces (Holloway 54). For the Soviets, tactical nuclear weapons would deter attacks from the US since deployment of these weapons would cause the destruction of Europe.
In addition to this, the Soviet Union did not have the capability to successfully attack the US due to the geographical distance between the two countries and the strong air defenses implemented by the US.
By 1965, Europe had thousands of tactical nuclear weapons, the majority of which were owned by NATO. Buzan and Herring state that NATO forces engaged in widespread use of nuclear artillery to strengthen its position in Europe (34).
A variety of delivery systems including cannons and tanks were to be used to deliver the nuclear payloads. The smallest tactical nuclear weapons could be carried and delivered through recoilless rifles placed on light armored vehicles.
By the end of the 1950s, there were a number of nuclear-capable tactical aircraft in operation all over Europe. In addition to the aircrafts, both sides introduced surface-to-surface missiles that could be used for tactical offence or defense purposes.
Arms races are characterized by a competition in terms of weapon quantity with each party trying to outnumber other others. During the nuclear arms race, the nations involved were engaged in intense competition to increase their nuclear stockpiles and produce nuclear warheads.
This was the case in the nuclear arms race with both super powers increasing their nuclear stockpiles with the aim of superseding the rival. At the peak of weapons proliferation, the USSR had 45,000 nuclear warheads while the US had about 30,000 nuclear warheads (Buzan and Herring 54). The countries also looked for the most effective ways of delivering their nuclear payloads to an enemy.
The two major rivals in the nuclear arms race tried to obtain the same or higher technological capabilities to their rival. Holloway reveals that the Soviet Union looked for means to equal US qualitative advancement in nuclear weapon development (148). Each technological advancement demonstrated by the US was shortly followed by similar achievements by the Soviets ensuring that the two states were at equal power.
For example, by 1965, the US had succeeded in successfully building and deploying an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) that was capable of delivering nuclear payloads to distant targets (Oelrich 81).
This was a threat to the Soviet Union since it meant that the US could launch a nuclear warhead into Soviet States from the US. To counter this, the Soviets also set out to develop the same capabilities. The Soviet Union built rockets that could carry the heavier and less effective nuclear warheads in the Soviet stockpiles halfway around the world.
An important note concerning the US-Soviet rivalry was that in addition to reacting to each others advancement, each superpower was also reacting to what it estimated that the other would do in the future (Buzan and Herring 95). This mutual suspicion led each nation to assume that its opponent was carrying out additional research and development in its nuclear weaponry.
Impacts of the Arms Race
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
In two and a half decades after the end of the Second World War, the nuclear arms race had become so prevalent that the international community acknowledged that action needed to be taken to prevent future spread of nuclear weapons.
To legally limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was established in 1968 and ratified in 1970 (Bluth 84). This treaty named the five nuclear capable countries of the time, which were the US, the Soviet Union, China, Britain, and France, as the primary owners of nuclear weapons and technology.
The nuclear capable signatories of the NPT agreed not to sell weapons to the non-nuclear capable states. In addition to this, the treaty required the nuclear weapons states to avoid providing technical aid that could help the non-nuclear capable states to manufacture nuclear weapons. This would ensure that the nuclear weapons were restricted to only a few states.
The other binding commitment of the NPT was to encourage nuclear disarmament (Bluth 88). The nuclear-weapon States were required to make positive steps towards reducing their nuclear weapons stockpiles and eventually achieve complete disarmament.
The NPT recognized that nuclear technology could be used for peaceful means. This treaty therefore allowed for the transfer of nuclear technology and material among nations for use in peaceful purposes such as power generation.
Deterrence
The nuclear arms race was used for deterrence purposes by the two United States and the Soviet Union. After the Second World War, these two former allies emerged as the great global powers. However, the two had sharp political and ideological differences that made them bitter rivals. In the years following the Second World War, the US and its allies were pitted against the Soviet Union and its allies.
The ideological conflict between the two led to threats of war and great antagonism between the Soviets and the Americans. The arsenal of nuclear weapons maintained by both the US and the Soviet Union ensured that the two superpowers were never engaged in a direct military confrontation since both powers were aware that such an action could lead to devastating losses (Oelrich 80).
The arms race introduced the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction . Both the US and the Soviet Union had amassed nuclear weapons that were capable of completely destroying each other (French 56). An important strategy employed by both sides was the second strike capability.
This capability meant that either side could strike back even after it had been hit by a devastating attack from the opposite side. As such, neither side could attack the other since each was assured that it would suffer catastrophic destruction even if it carried out a preemptive attack.
Costs
The nuclear arms race led to a monumental increase in the military expenditure of the US and the Soviet Union. The US increased its military spending to finance research and development into nuclear weapons and efficient delivery systems. By the year 1986, the US had a defense budget of $367 billion, a 200% increase from the previous decade (French 163).
However, the military expenditure was low compared to the countrys GDP and Americans did not feel the negative economic impact of the nuclear weapons program. The Soviet Union was more affected by the financial strain caused by the arms race since the country had a lower GDP.
In addition to this, the arms race strained the countrys economy since significant resources were dedicated to the Soviet military research at the expense of the civilian sector. Some scholars argue that the financial burden imposed by the nuclear arms race contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent end of the arms race (Kort 1973).
This argument holds some merit considering the fact that the Soviets dedicated between 30 and 40% of their GDP to military efforts while the US only used 8 to 10%. This difference in economic costs made it hard for the Soviet Union to keep up with the US in the arms race.
Decline in the Arms Race
Haslam reveals that by the beginning of the 1960s, it was clear that the US and the Soviet had equal nuclear power (43). While the US has begun as the global nuclear leader, the Soviet has increased its weapons number and sophistication to match that of the US.
Both sides realized that it would be important to stop or reduce the race of the arms race. In 1972, the first treaty aimed at limiting nuclear weapons was implemented. This treaty, known as the strategic arms limitations talks (SALT) put temporary limits on intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched missiles. It also imposed strict limits on defensive antiballistic missile systems.
However, this treaty did not limit efforts at modernizing the available missile systems of both nations. As such, both countries continued to modernize their offensive missiles and developed missiles capable of carrying more than one nuclear warhead.
Kort documents that these missiles known as MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) rendered the SALT agreements ineffective since each country could still deliver missiles to numerous targets in spite of the limitation on delivery vehicles (1971). A second agreement, SALT II was proposed to address the inadequacies of the first treaty.
The end of the arms race started with the appointment of Mikhail Gorbachev as the first secretary of the powerful Communist Part of the Soviet Union. This Soviet leader advocated for a reduction in the nuclear and conventional forces of the Soviet Union.
Bluth reports that the Soviets made a series of concessions that led to the ratification of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) treaty, which required a large reduction in the nuclear stockpiles of the US and the Soviet Union (215). The treaty also called for an elimination of short and medium range nuclear missiles and this requirement was fulfilled in 1991 when both the US and the Soviet Union destroyed their arsenals.
The end of the cold in 1991 war marked the end of the nuclear arms race that had been in play for almost four decades. With the dissolution of the USSR, the US was the dominant military power in the world.
During the early 1990s, the US and the Soviet Union reduced their tactical nuclear weapons in Europe following the withdrawal of Russian troops from Eastern Europe (French 74). From then on, the US and Russia have engaged in a policy of continuous nuclear disarmament.
Discussion
In spite of the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, the US and Russia still retain a considerable number of nuclear weapons. Oelrich states that the two countries are capable of launching devastating nuclear attacks against each other (79). The primary reason for maintaining a nuclear arsenal in the post-Cold War era is deterrence.
Oelrich agrees that the nuclear weapons are able to support broad deterrence objectives therefore ensuring that neither country takes aggressive military action against its rival (81). It can be assumed that nuclear weapons will continue to fulfill this role since as opposed to leading to a war, the nuclear arms race served as a substitute for war since none of the nuclear weapon states have every used their weapons against an adversary.
Conclusion
This paper set out to discuss the nuclear arms race that took place between the US and the Soviet Union after the Second World War. It began by highlighting the introduction of nuclear weapons into modern warfare by the US. The paper then showed how the Soviet Union made efforts to obtain nuclear capabilities during the first 5 years following the end of WWII.
Following the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union, the US took measures to increase its nuclear superiority and this created the arms race. The paper has revealed that the nuclear arms race was aimed at increasing the global power of the nuclear weapons states and serve a deterrence purpose to the other arms race participants.
The arms race came to an end following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even so, nuclear weapons continue to play a major role in the defense strategy of the US and Russia.
Works Cited
Bluth, Christopher. The Collapse of Soviet Military Power. London: Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, 1995. Print.
Buzan, Barry, and Herring Eric. The Arms Dynamic in World Politics. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998. Print.
Carnesale, Albert, Paul Doty, Stanley Hoffman, Samuel Huntington and Scott Sagan. Living with Nuclear Weapons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983. Print.
French, David. Army, Empire, and Cold War: The British Army and Military Policy, 1945-1971. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.
Haslam, Jonathan. The Soviet Union and the Politics of Nuclear Weapons in Europe, 1969-1987. London: MacMillan Press, 1989.
Holloway, David. The Soviet Union and the Arms Race. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.
Kort, Michael. The Columbia Guide to the Cold War. NY: Columbia University Press, 2013. Print.
Oelrich, Ivan. The next step in arms control: Eliminate the counterforce mission. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 68.1 (2012): 7985. Print.