Myths of the Golden Era -- Exploded!

[LizzieMaine]

A good deal of the animosity toward Imperial Japan was not based on racism. News of atrocities against the Chinese did reach the U.S. For some reason, that caused some negative reactions. While America's feelings towards China was more than a little bit tinged with paternalism, there was quite a bit of friendly feelings towards China.

Fundraising campaigns for Chinese relief were widespread in the US in 1937-38, due largely to footage of some of the atrocities committed by the invading Japanese being featured in American newsreels in the fall of 1937. The famous photo of an abandoned baby crying in the ruins of Shanghai was taken by a Hearst Metrotone News photographer and appeared in nearly every newspaper, newsmagazine, and photo publication in the US during September and October of 1937, with its definitive appearance in the October 4, 1937 issue of Life.

Japanese apologists immediately claimed the photo was faked, and there are lingering pockets today who hold to that view, but no evidence of fakery has ever surfaced. Indeed, the original Metrotone News footage showed the baby being rescued and given first aid by a troop of Chinese Boy Scouts. The film footage also showed the dead body of a woman, presumably the mother, lying just out of range of the famous still image shown above.

That footage, and that photo, stirred up a wave of anti-Japan sentiment in the United States that continued with little letup right up until Pearl Harbor. Boycotts of Japanese goods were widespread by 1939. The Americans of the time were well aware of the brutality of Japanese militarism well before December 7, 1941.

 

[jamespowers]

Interesting..... as I understood it, the biggest political factor drawing them into the European war was Hitler, having realised his oopsy in opening up a second front ("Hitler never played Risk as a kid" - E Izzard), declared war on the USA in the mistaken belief that Japan would by return declare war on Russia. Had the US not come into the war in Europe, I think the Brits and Hitler would have reached some uneasy understanding (I have no doubt even Churchill would have done that deal rather than face invasion - for all his blustering rhetoric in the "fight them on the beaches" speech, with the mic switched off he acknowledged it wasn't realistic). Possibly the Brits would have offered covert assistance to Russia, somehow. Depending on how hard Russia pushed (remember, they got to Berlin first, though I'm sure that would have been harder without Hitler having to deal with a Western front too), maybe they would have triumphed and we'd have seen a much larger proportion of Europe as Soviet satellite states during the latter part of the Twentieth Century.

Britain and Hitler did reach an agreement---remember Chamberlain? By Churchill's time, he would have known better than to reach any agreement with Germany as they had already proven to be untrustworthy. He might well have fought them to the beaches. I believe the people at that time would have backed that decision as well. They were pretty POed.

 

[jamespowers]

Fundraising campaigns for Chinese relief were widespread in the US in 1937-38, due largely to footage of some of the atrocities committed by the invading Japanese being featured in American newsreels in the fall of 1937. The famous photo of an abandoned baby crying in the ruins of Shanghai was taken by a Hearst Metrotone News photographer and appeared in nearly every newspaper, newsmagazine, and photo publication in the US during September and October of 1937, with its definitive appearance in the October 4, 1937 issue of Life.

Japanese apologists immediately claimed the photo was faked, and there are lingering pockets today who hold to that view, but no evidence of fakery has ever surfaced. Indeed, the original Metrotone News footage showed the baby being rescued and given first aid by a troop of Chinese Boy Scouts. The film footage also showed the dead body of a woman, presumably the mother, lying just out of range of the famous still image shown above.

That footage, and that photo, stirred up a wave of anti-Japan sentiment in the United States that continued with little letup right up until Pearl Harbor. Boycotts of Japanese goods were widespread by 1939. The Americans of the time were well aware of the brutality of Japanese militarism well before December 7, 1941.

That photo is just disturbing. I can just imagine how it would have been met by the public at the time--incensed would have been a mild term---especially among parents. I know it gets me 75 years later.

 

[Gingerella72]

Tell me about it, many people tend to talk this way, whether in face-to-face conversation or on the internet (on Facebook and messageboards etc.) Do they feel more "adult" because they constantly talk that way? Perhaps, they just think its "cool" and probably feel "superior" or "smarter" because they can't say (or write) one sentence without an obscenity or explecetive in it). No way...it just makes them look stupid and very uneducated. It's too bad that most people don't have an ounce of respect or courtesy in them, let alone knowing how to act appropriately in public or with mixed company.

-Kristi

-Kristi

Honestly, I think (among the millenial generation) those words are so commonplace they don't even consider them obscene or swear words. To many of them it's just the normal way to talk. Which is [like] sad. :eusa_doh:

 

[Edward]

Britain and Hitler did reach an agreement---remember Chamberlain?

Chamberlain may have bee naive, but the Brits certainly weren't ready for war in 38.

By Churchill's time, he would have known better than to reach any agreement with Germany as they had already proven to be untrustworthy. He might well have fought them to the beaches. I believe the people at that time would have backed that decision as well. They were pretty POed.

Churchill was a realist, and if it was either abandon Europe to the Nazis and survive alone or face an invasion that they couldn't repel, I don't believe for a minute he'd have chosen the latter. Sure, nobody would have trusted Hitler, but if it even bought them time to be better prepared for invasion, they'd have done it.

 

[KayEn78]

Honestly, I think (among the millenial generation) those words are so commonplace they don't even consider them obscene or swear words. To many of them it's just the normal way to talk. Which is [like] sad. :eusa_doh:

How unfortunate and true this is. And it probably won't ever change for the better.

-Kristi

 

[jamespowers]

Chamberlain may have bee naive, but the Brits certainly weren't ready for war in 38.




Churchill was a realist, and if it was either abandon Europe to the Nazis and survive aloe or face an invasion that they couldn't repel, I don't believe for a minute he'd have chosen the latter. Sure, nobody would have trusted Hitler, but if it even bought them time to be better prepared for invasion, they'd have done it.

They certainly weren't ready and neither were we. Both countries reduced their militaries drastically after the first World War. It was short sighted in retrospect. That is for sure. However, Peace in our time was a bit much.

Now THAT sounds like Chruchill. Use it as a delay tactic and then nail them when they were in a better position. Uncategorical surrender was not his style. Fortunately, we have no idea what would have actually happened. Hitler was certainly ready to run his country right into the ground before surrendering.:eusa_doh:

 

[Angus Forbes]

Churchill wrote a wonderful book about Chamberlain and appeasement (inter alia) called "The Gathering Storm." He goes on at length about how easy it would have been to disarm Germany up to about 1937; the French were quite formidable at that time relative to the Germans. The book is an interesting read, as are most volumes of his WWII series.

IIRC, not all of the French Fleet was destroyed early on by Britain -- Admiral Darlan and the Vichy govt still had a substantial fleet in the period between the fall of France and the Eisenhower invasion of northwestern Africa, which was not under the control of the Germans at any time. Trouble was that Darlan hated both the Germans and the British.

 

[Angus Forbes]

Youtube comments such as those referenced above are written, usually, by the same type of flag-waving ignoramus who knows nothing more about history than that "WE [the US] saved your a** in WW2, if it wasn't for US you would be speaking German today", and that the upshot of this "freedom" so generously granted us is that we are not permitted to hold "anti-American" views (i.e. any view which would conflict with the commentator's notion of what is best for the US and the superiority of US culture. lol You get the same sort of idiot the world over, really.

I have observed over the years that many Americans are unaware of how powerful the RAf and the Royal Navy were -- more than able to hold their own against the Germans and Italians. Fairly early in the war, for example, the RAF was able to mount a 1000-bomber raid, on its own, against Cologne.

Confession -- I am a hopelessly pro-British, pro-French American

 

[Undertow]

See my previous definition of the appropriate uses of swearing. Such would apply in this case.

Some such individuals have followings in Japanese politics even today. And then there's this monstrosity. Note the dateline.

Now this is shameful. I'm sorry to see it at all. It makes you wonder what depths of self-serving ignorance he must plunge to sleep at night.

 

[LizzieMaine]

To say nothing of the voters who elected him to office.

 

[jamespowers]

To say nothing of the voters who elected him to office.

And that is a very salient point.

 

[Shangas]

This message is in reply to Edward's encyclopedic posting on page 22.

Youtube comments such as those referenced above are written, usually, by the same type of flag-waving ignoramus who knows nothing more about history than that "WE [the US] saved your a** in WW2, if it wasn't for US you would be speaking German today", and that the upshot of this "freedom" so generously granted us is that we are not permitted to hold "anti-American" views (i.e. any view which would conflict with the commentator's notion of what is best for the US and the superiority of US culture. You get the same sort of idiot the world over, really.

While what you say is certainly true, I thought it nonetheless, interesting to um...throw that can of oil on the fire...and see what happened. I figured it would create some interesting responses. Those 'ignoramuses' certainly do have inflated views of themselves and their countries. Sometimes it can be quite fun doing battle with them online if for no other reason than to show them to be the morons that they are.

That must be fascinating. I spend a few weeks a year in China now, amazing country. I adore the place. I've visited all the imperial places in Beijing (especially fascinated by the Temple of Heaven - ritual always intrigues me, especially on that scale), and I really must read up on the history. One of the most fawscinating places there is the military museum. It is the history of the Red Army from 1929, and of course it presents the official story. Absolutely fascinating to see it presented through that filter (and to compare how similar official versions have appeared in our own cultures, albeit that in the West dissenting views are less open to legal sanction for the most part. ).

We really kinda breezed through Chinese history. We did a bit on the Qings, a bit on the Republic, a lot on the Civil War and the rest on the Communists. The Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the Long March. All that convinced me that communism doesn't work, really. I don't think we covered it in as great a detail as I would've liked. It was interesting, but it was interesting at a tour-bus pace. You see it, you get one chance to take it in, and then it's gone.

Wasn't this a big part of much of the post-war ill feeling towards the Brits from the French that led to deGaulle being instrumental in blocking early British applications to join the fore-runner of the EU?

If it was, I think it was stupid. I see it as Churchill's hand being forced. He told the French that they had to get their ships to England or if not there, then at least somewhere safe where they couldn't be commandeered by the Germans. They refused (or were unable, I forget which) to do so. So to prevent them falling into German hands, Churchill ordered the entire fleet to be blown up and sunk. IF the Germans had gotten their hands on the French Fleet, with that additional seapower, I think England would've had a lot harder time with its transatlantic convoys.

It's a long running conspiracy theory that suggests he allowed it to happen to have the excuse to go to war against Japan. I'm not convinced, myself, chiefly because I can't see what advantage it brought to the US. They were covertly supporting the Nationalist Chinese against Japan, which I think was more about trying to thwart Chinese communism than anything to do with Japan.

The Nationalists and the Communists had been fighting in China for YEARS. The Civil War lasted from 1923-1937. Then again from 1945-1949. They couldn't see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING. Not even the Japanese. The Communists told the Nationalists that they'd have to band together to kick out the Japanese, but the Nationalists were more interested in dealing with the Communists, and so the Japanese took second-priority, and that allowed them to steamroller into China virtually unopposed.

 

[jamespowers]

If it was, I think it was stupid. I see it as Churchill's hand being forced. He told the French that they had to get their ships to England or if not there, then at least somewhere safe where they couldn't be commandeered by the Germans. They refused (or were unable, I forget which) to do so. So to prevent them falling into German hands, Churchill ordered the entire fleet to be blown up and sunk. IF the Germans had gotten their hands on the French Fleet, with that additional seapower, I think England would've had a lot harder time with its transatlantic convoys.

Which is also why the Vichy French had to be kicked out of Madagascar. They were about ready to grant over the area to Japan or Germany---whichever came first. Control of that area was strategicaly important and would have crippled the British supply lines that were perilous at best already if an enemy port were established there. Those ships would have made it even worse---with a ready made opposition sea force there already. They took them out and Colonial Madagascar ended soon after the war anyway---even under Free French control.

 

[Bluebird Marsha]

Now this is shameful. I'm sorry to see it at all. It makes you wonder what depths of self-serving ignorance he must plunge to sleep at night.

When you don't have a conscience, it's probably quite easy to sleep at night.

But on a more pleasant topic. Swearing.

I can't recall the source, but it was some pamphlet for managers in WWII who were faced with an influx of female workers. Along with suggestions on how to deal with this exotic species of worker. There was a comment about swearing.

Something along the lines of "your female employees have undoubtedly heard a great deal of swearing at home; from their husbands, fathers, and brother. That doesn't mean they want to hear it from you." I would say this illustrates that context is everything. If you can't figure out where and when swearing is semi-acceptable, then you're too young to participate.

 

[KayEn78]

I remember reading a pamphlet that was given to women who worked during the war in the defense plants. It was very similar to what the management pamphlet said, only it went something like this: "Don't curse. Even if your husband does at home, you should not, you're a lady." Well, it went something like that anyway.

-Kristi

 

[Edward]

Confession -- I am a hopelessly pro-British, pro-French American

I strvie to remain objective on thematter of WW", which has gotten me accused of being "pro Nazi" on several occasions. lol

While what you say is certainly true, I thought it nonetheless, interesting to um...throw that can of oil on the fire...and see what happened. I figured it would create some interesting responses. Those 'ignoramuses' certainly do have inflated views of themselves and their countries. Sometimes it can be quite fun doing battle with them online if for no other reason than to show them to be the morons that they are.

Fun for a while, but it gets tedious very quickly - especially their inevitable "Hitler was a leftist" nonsense (and yes, moleskin is made from actual moles - it has it in the name!! ).

We really kinda breezed through Chinese history. We did a bit on the Qings, a bit on the Republic, a lot on the Civil War and the rest on the Communists. The Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the Long March. All that convinced me that communism doesn't work, really. I don't think we covered it in as great a detail as I would've liked. It was interesting, but it was interesting at a tour-bus pace. You see it, you get one chance to take it in, and then it's gone.

It's a fascinating history. I think more people should be made to study it in the West, especially from PO of understanding that other cultures don't share the same values always as to what is an appropriate model of government. It's hard to credit the Chinese experience as proof one way or the other of the effectiveness of Marx's economic theory. Marx was writing with a post-industrialist society which had been through the capitalist stage in mind, not a feudal, agrarian society. Same problem in Russia. It would have been interesting to see a communist experiment in a country for which Marx did intend his theory, and one without a tradition of authoritarian rule (as was the case in Russia and China both), that being a different beast altogether.

The Nationalists and the Communists had been fighting in China for YEARS. The Civil War lasted from 1923-1937. Then again from 1945-1949. They couldn't see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING. Not even the Japanese. The Communists told the Nationalists that they'd have to band together to kick out the Japanese, but the Nationalists were more interested in dealing with the Communists, and so the Japanese took second-priority, and that allowed them to steamroller into China virtually unopposed.

Yes, it's horrendous how long it all was (mmn, echoes of an eight hundred year old argument not far from where I sit as I type this... ).

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Youtube comments such as those referenced above are written, usually, by the same type of flag-waving ignoramus who knows nothing more about history than that "WE [the US] saved your a** in WW2, if it wasn't for US you would be speaking German today", and that the upshot of this "freedom" so generously granted us is that we are not permitted to hold "anti-American" views (i.e. any view which would conflict with the commentator's notion of what is best for the US and the superiority of US culture. lol You get the same sort of idiot the world over, really.

Once I was looking on YouTube at a video about the Romanian army during WWII. While the video itself wasn't quite that interesting, the comments were! It was nothing but a huge flame war between Romanian and Hungarian YouTube members (the two countries were traditional enemies for centuries). At one point in the "discussion" they even brought up Vlad Tepes. One of the comments that stuck in my mind was from a Hungarian who wrote (and I'm paraphrasing), "Stop posting in English! Americans can read the propaganda written by your radicals." lol

 

[Story]

Now this is shameful. I'm sorry to see it at all. It makes you wonder what depths of self-serving ignorance he must plunge to sleep at night.

The exact same fuel that drove the Japanese troops to do what they did in 1937.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

In one particularly infamous episode during the Nanking Massacre two Japanese officers challenged each other to a "contest" to determine who could rack up the biggest body count with their swords. This so-called contest even received extensive coverage in the Japanese press. If I recall correctly one of the officers was killed later in the war and the surviving officer was brought to justice and hanged.