Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to Marilyn Burlingame and Richard Thurston some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    How the Pearl Harbor attack still shapes America

    After Dec. 7, 1941, the now-disappearing Greatest Generation saved democracy, but much that came out of the end of World War II also lies behind our greatest security threats, from Iran to North Korea.

    (Page 2 of 3)

    Walking to Washington Grade School and to downtown, I saw Gold Stars in windows along the way. They signified that a family member had been killed in the war. Blue Stars signified that a family member was serving.

    American losses in the Asia/Pacific theater, as in other war theaters, were relatively small compared to those of other major combatant countries. But the fighting in the Pacific was brutal and intense. The Japanese, with a long warrior tradition, held to a no-surrender, fight-to-the-death doctrine. When defeat was apparent in battle, they often made suicide charges. They also undertook suicide airplane and submarine attacks. They scorned adversaries who did not follow suit and who surrendered. American and other allied prisoners were often maltreated, sent to slave labor, and/or beheaded or used for bayonet practice. The best account of the Pacific fighting is perhaps contained in British historian Max Hastings' 2008 book Retribution (Knopf). If you prefer fiction, based on fact, there are Norman Mailer's The Naked and the Dead and James Jones' The Thin Red Line.

    Could the war in the Pacific have been averted?

    It is difficult to see how it might have been. Japan was bent on Asian conquest — and the establishment of a so-called Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere in which colonial powers would be expelled and it would dominate. Its conquests and occupations had proceeded during the 1930s. Finally, FDR ordered an embargo of Japanese petroleum, without which the Japanese economy and war machine would soon starve. He knew the Japanese would not yield and, in doing so, knew that he was pulling the U.S. toward a war it otherwise had wanted to avoid. A Japanese attack was, in fact, expected, although not in Hawaii. The Dec. 7 raid on Pearl Harbor destroyed battleships, aircraft, and other vessels. But, to our good fortune, American aircraft carriers were on maneuvers at sea and avoided the attack.

    Japan had no intention, of course, of invading or conquering the United States. It believed that strong and decisive early Japanese blows in the Pacific would open the way to a negotiated end to the war. But that was a misreading of the American character. From that point forward, there was never a real chance for anything but an outcome resulting in unconditional Japanese surrender.

    Lives were lost in the Pacific war that might have been spared. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who had commanded pre-war troops in the Philippines, insisted on the islands' reconquest. The lives and money expended on that reconquest, and that of the stepping-stone islands en route to the Philippines, need not have been expended at all. U.S. and allied forces could have bypassed them and proceeded in a straighter line toward the Japanese homeland.

    In the latter stages of the war, Gen. Curtis LeMay and his aide, Robert McNamara, oversaw unprecedented firebombing of major Japanese cities, with mainly civilian casualties, which claimed hundreds of thousands. They also pushed for and oversaw the dropping of nuclear weapons on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, unleashing a nuclear-weapons race which is still proceeding, most notably now in Iran. No time was given to the Japanese, between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, to consider terms of surrender. The carnage simply proceeded. Just as at the beginning of the war, an alternative blockade-and-isolation strategy could have starved the homeland of vital energy and other resources and forced an eventual Japanese capitulation.

    There never was an inevitable choice between dropping the nuclear weapons and/or undertaking a massive and costly land invasion of Japan. But war fever still ran high and President Truman OK'd the dropping of the nukes.

    My most vivid recollection of VJ Day (Victory in Japan Day) was of horns and bells coming from the direction of downtown Bellingham. I saw two young wives, with husbands in the Pacific, race from their homes across the street and embrace each other in the middle of the intersection. They were sobbing with joy. I ran downtown to see similar street scenes. Not a day to forget. A few weeks later, a formal victory parade came down Holly Street downtown. It was led by Gen. Jonathan Wainwright, a Washington-state native who had succeeded MacArthur in command in the Philippines and been imprisoned by the Japanese. He rode a white horse.  He was pale and weak and could not have weighed 130 pounds. A real hero, I thought, which the narcissistic MacArthur was not.

    Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


    Posted Tue, Dec 4, 8:54 a.m. Inappropriate

    Though I often disagree with Mr. Van Dyk, for this poignantly eloquent essay I salute him. Well done!

    Posted Wed, Dec 5, 1:19 p.m. Inappropriate

    Mr. Van Dyk,
    I recommend you read two books that deal with how the Germans and Italians were rounded-up, some torn from their homes in Central and South America and placed in American concentration camps. I suggest you read, Enemies by John Christgau to learn about the German internment, and Stephen Fox's Fear Itself to learn about both German and Italian internment. One individual who suffered was a doctor in the Puget Sound area who was taken away without any warning or opportunity to explain his situation. Neither the Germans or Italians who were imprisoned have been compensated.
    Frank Bettendorf


    Posted Wed, Dec 5, 5:13 p.m. Inappropriate

    Mr. Bettendorf: Thanks for calling these two books to my attention.
    So far as I know, only a handful of German- and Italian-American
    citizens were held in custody; they were believed to be actively involved with or agents of their home-country regimes. I would not be surprised to learn that some detentions were in error. There were no general roundups, however, as with Japanese Americans. I look forward to becoming further informed.

    Posted Thu, Dec 6, 10:22 p.m. Inappropriate



    There's more then you think.


    Posted Thu, Dec 6, 10:29 p.m. Inappropriate

    Who are we really afraid of?

    The war really never ended for us, We've been on a war economy since WWII and neither Democrats nor Republicans want it to end. Just look at much pressure our own war supporting Democrats on this side of the mountain fight to keep the war machine here.


    Posted Fri, Dec 7, 3:35 p.m. Inappropriate

    Good article; thank you. The decision to bomb more indiscriminately was not made by LeMay (nor McNamara). It was the decision of Hap Arnold and, probably, the entire military command, including President Truman. LeMay's predecessor, General Hansell had pursued a more "precision bombing" campaign for two years. By 1945 it was demonstrably ineffective and was changed with the intention of preparing Japan for an invasion.


    Posted Fri, Dec 7, 8:35 p.m. Inappropriate

    We interned German-Americans and some Italians as well. Not as many as the Japanese, but not zero by any means.

    As the Canadians interned Japanese-Canadians.

    The Brits did their share.

    I find it remarkable how people think the USA invented this sort of thing.

    Posted Sat, Dec 8, 5:01 a.m. Inappropriate

    Thank you for your further comments.

    1.Kieth is correct that Gen. Arnold, the Air Force commander, and, ultimately, the Presiden were responsible for the overall decision to undertake massive firebombing and nuking of Japanese cities, inflicting huge civilian casualties, but it was Gen. LeMay who pressed for such a policy. (McNamara, his aide, was responsible for statistical analysis of various bombing approaches). Commanders at theater level were given huge leeway during WWII. President Roosevelt and General Marshall, the overall U.S. military commander, allowed MacArthur, for instance, to squander time, money, and lives with his campaign to retake the Phillipines.

    LeMay and McNamara, of course, were to make their marks later on.
    LeMay was nicknamed "the mad bomber" for his ceaseless post-World War II attempts to build up U.S. strategic bomber forces and our nuclear capability. He was one of those asserting that we should not fear undertaking a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. McNamara went on to become president of the Ford Motor Co., where he
    launched the costly and failed Edsel project, and then Defense Secretary under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, before LBJ fired him
    late in 1967. He attempted to run the Vietnam War through statistical analysis, leading U.S. commanders there to stress body counts and "kill ratios" as indicators of success. In an interview a few years ago McNamara recounted jokingly how LeMay had said, during the
    firebombing and nuking of Japanese cities, that "we would be tried as war criminals" if on the losing side. He was right and it was no joke.

    2. Yes, other countries on the allied side interned their own citizens of Japanese, German, or Italian heritage. And U.S. and other occupying forces treated captured and surrendered German troops
    quite brutally in internment camps immediately after WWII. In the European theater, Winston Churchill successfully pressed for bombings
    of German civilian targets comparable to the U.S. late-war bombings in Japan. He wanted not only to defeat Hitler and Nazism but to kill and punish German civilians. He cut his teeth in the bloody, imperialist Boer war and, in World War I, sponsored the disastrous Gallipoli campaign which killed needlessly so many Anzac troops. Churchill was a war lover, colonialist, and unreconstructed advocate of British
    empire and dominance. We should not set our own standards of wartime conduct to match the worst ones of our allies.

    Posted Sat, Dec 8, 5:33 a.m. Inappropriate

    Your mention of posters reminds me of the ubiquitous gremlins, designed by Disney I think, who were always trying to cause sabotage. There were some orangutan characters too, but don't remember what they were about.

    I still have a ring-binder that my mom kept as leader of our Blue Bird group (a sub-division of Camp Fire) which shows how much tin foil and how many small tin cans, puzzles and cartoons from magazines we had collected. The tin foil was for the 'war effort'. The cans were used as ash trays for servicemen in hospitals. The puzzles and cartoons were mounted in hand-made booklets for servicemen. We also bought a War Bond for Camp Fire's "Pledge-a-Plane" campaign.

    Even the children could actively participate to help win the war.


    Posted Sat, Dec 8, 1:05 p.m. Inappropriate

    TVD, thank you for your reply. LeMay was chosen by Arnold because of his success in Europe (lower casualties, fewer lost airplanes, greater destruction); I admit his advice may have been solicited by Arnold but I think it is likely that LeMay's tenure in Europe convinced his superiors that he was an extraordinarily effective leader. A lot of talented military leaders are egotistical, narcissistic and delicately balanced psychologically (MacArther, Patton, Sherman). LeMay's private life was exemplary, his military service was crucial during WWII. His later, unfortunate political stances were, in hindsight, relatively harmless; he won no elections and probably had very little effect on the Nation's political path. So I tend to defend him. When he took over the 8th Air Force he flew on a weekly schedule with his men in addition to his administrative duties. He was, by accounts I have read, brave, intelligent and an inspired tactician.
    His later political pronouncements have tended to tended to overshadow his well deserved military reputation. I regret that.


    Posted Sat, Dec 8, 4:59 p.m. Inappropriate

    Posted Sat, Dec 8, 5 p.m. Inappropriate

    We should not set our own standards of wartime conduct to match the worst ones of our allies.

    And we didn't. I'll stack up the USA's behavior in WW-2 against any of the other powers in a heartbeat.

    Canada's exclusion of Japanese from the West Coast continued until 1949 by the way.
    oh, and in 1949, the Japanese-Canadians were finally allowed to vote.

    Reading some descriptions of the war these days, one would think the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor to free the Japanese-Americans from the relocation camps.

    Posted Sun, Dec 9, 9:44 p.m. Inappropriate

    War and conflict march on; we have been off and on at war with pirates (Muslim terrorists) since the 1790's. The memory of horrible and evil German and Japanese regimes of the World War II era still keep some of us from buying any of their modern day products since they have not all yet died off. The vicious, evil Soviets were destroyed by President Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and the Pope. America has changed for the greater good. Regardless of red vrs. blue state political differences, the country stands as a beacon of morality and freedom. A mobile, modern, high tech military will be required for decades to kill off the evil enemies of the USA. Sadly, other nations are not as willing to 'pay their fair share' in keeping the world safe from bad actor rogue nations and thug/gangs.


    Posted Wed, Dec 12, 10:06 a.m. Inappropriate

    "... Gen. Curtis LeMay and his aide, Robert McNamara, oversaw unprecedented firebombing of major Japanese cities, with mainly civilian casualties, which claimed hundreds of thousands. They also pushed for and oversaw the dropping of nuclear weapons on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki..."

    WTF? Well, that explains plenty. McNamara, the blood-thirsty psychopath, got away with wholesale genocide in two Asian wars (one of them undeclared). He was the key architect of the Vietnam War, which killed at least three million Vietnamese, around one million Cambodians and Laotians, and 58,000 American soldiers. And nobody had the guts to stop him.

    Remember when McNamara went on his "mea culpa" book tour back in 1995? How about his half-baked "apology" in "Fog of War," where he never actually says "I'm sorry?" That despicably cynical attempt to rewrite his abysmal personal history was exceeded only in distaste by a gullible film producer who assisted him, and the egregiously ignorant, short-memoried AMPAS members who voted the disgusting, self-indulgent display worthy of an Oscar. At least Leni Riefenstahl was forced into it. Errol Morris will never be able to claim anything other than his own blind stupidity.

    Too many have forgotten that this vile excuse for a human being was the primary architect of the Viet Nam War. I'm not one of them. Nor are the families and friends of the kids who died at Kent State.


    Posted Sat, Dec 15, 9:20 a.m. Inappropriate

    I, too, am not an admirer of Robert McNamara's. Yet his continuing
    acceptance in the Washington, D.C. policy and social communities, over a long period, illustrates the degree to which hypocrisy and fascination with power can overwhelm common sense. Among McNamara's friends and social hosts were many, including Robert Kennedy, who became critical of the Vietnam War. His senior civilian aides at Defense, all JFK appointees, were strongly loyal to him.

    I periodically interacted with McNamara during his time as Defense Secretary, World Bank president, and later private citizen. JFK
    appointed McNamara as Defense Secy because he wanted a Republican in the position and was attracted, as well, by McNamara's business background as Ford Motor CEO (even though his brief tenure as Ford CEO
    had been notably unsuccessful). LBJ eventually fired McNamara as Defense Secy because he thought he was becoming unstable and doubted his judgment. He also was miffed because McNamara was an all-out hawk
    in internal meetings re Vietnam but, at private dinner parties, was painting himself as an anguished dove. After he was pushed to the World Bank by LBJ, I asked his assistant at the Bank, a British citizen, how he liked working for McNamara. He responded: "He is the cruelest and most arrogant person I've ever known."

    Later I served on a private economic-policy task force with McNamara.
    There he was rigid, uninterested in contrary opinion, and saw everything in quantitative terms (harking back to his WWII and Vietnam-era quantitative approaches to policy). I, too, was appalled by his Vietnam apology tour and his sympathetic portrayal in the Morris film.

    One reason for his continuing acceptance in D.C., despite his acts,
    might have been his outward approach to people (although obviously not to his British aide at the Bank). I saw him periodically over a 25-year period in non-professional settings. He knew that I had been an avid Vietnam War critic inside and outside government. Yet he was personally amiable and cheerful whenever our paths crossed; it was hard to square that persona with his acts as policymaker. A complex man who did great damage.

    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »