Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
THIS QUESTIONS COMES FROM READING A THREAD ABOUT THE PACIFIC THE NEW MINI SERIES ON HBO. I LOVED BAND OF BROTHERS AND WILL MOST CERTAINLEY WATCH THIS AS WELL. MY ? IS THIS
What confuses me is I dont often hear of soldiers from the European side of WW2 talk about hatred for the damn germans as much as I hear of similar hatred soldiers still have 60 years later for the japaneese, is it because it was an unfamilar enemy? Or was it because the level of ferosity was not there in germany, or was it due to the use of bigger guns, tanks, airstrikes and artillery support peices without the heavy use of having to go almost hand to hand in the pacific. Please enlighten,
also as a side note I'm speaking simply of the hatred of Americans vs Germans, Obviously I know Soviets hated Germans plenty and vis versa
No need for all caps in your first paragraph. I gave up on HblowO a year ago, otherwise I would love to see the new series (the first worthwhile thing on HBO since "The Sopranos").
The reason for the hatred was the race issue. German's and Americans - all still anglo-saxon heritage. But Japanese were another race, could have been martians to the average american. And the propaganda of the time played up to that. Also, mistreatement of POWs by Japanese was a known fact very early (from publicized reports of the Bataan death march, pictures of US airmen being decapated with swords, etc). It was a theater of war where no quarter was expected, and no quarter was frequently given.
- The average American knew Germans, many of them were from German heritage. They were the same race and shared the same beliefs. They were an enemy, but still human. The Japanese on the other hand were completely foreign to most Americans. The media effort in support of the war played upon this. If you look at the propaganda the German's are depicted as humans that just happened to be our enemy. The Japanese were depicted as something sub-human capable of the worst atrocities known. People bought it.
- The Japanese attacked us. That made them instantly worse than the Germans for many Americans. On top of that, it was a surprise attack and the desire for revenge ran deep.
- Soldiers and civilians alike knew that the Japanese would provide no quarter to prisoners, which adds an extra level of intensity and emphasized their brutality.
- The nature of combat in the Pacific led to each battle being a complete struggle from beginning to end to secure the objective. There were no shifting lines across a broad front. You had to go to island X and eliminate the enemy completely.
So, xenophobia combined with brutal combat will pretty much always guarantee hatred toward the opponent.
As an anecdote, my father in law always tells me stories about growing up with his dad who served in the Pacific in WW2. They had a globe in the house and Japan and any mention of it had been erased off the map. His father also refused to eat rice or have it in his house. He said that his dad would never talk of his experiences, but he knew he was deeply troubled by what he had been through.
They had a globe in the house and Japan and any mention of it had been erased off the map. His father also refused to eat rice or have it in his house.
My grandfather was the same way. He served in a US Navy Construction Battalion in the Pacific during World War II. Although their primary function was building and maintaining bases they were trained as infantry and were frequently called upon to serve as such.
Until the day he died he refused to eat Japanese food or make use of any product made in Japan or by a Japanese company. He truly hated and despised the Japanese ... and quite frankly I don't blame him.
There were many reasons Americans hated the Japanese. The surprise attack on pearl harbor was likely the greatest and the horrific treatment of American prisoners of war was another. But race clearly influenced American views of the war, particularly because the Japanese behaved in ways that were so alien to American culture that they came to be seen as nearly a different species. Banzai charges, ritual suicide and refusing to surrender, the kamikaze, all had signficant impact on how Americans saw the Japanese. That they looked different than Americans, unlike Germans, made this much easier.
Another factor to consider is that while Americans quickly came to blame the war on Europe not on Germans but the Nazi party (and the German aristocracy to a lesser extent) this was not the case for the most part in the Pacific. There we blamed the whole Japanese nation for the war.
THIS QUESTIONS COMES FROM READING A THREAD ABOUT THE PACIFIC THE NEW MINI SERIES ON HBO. I LOVED BAND OF BROTHERS AND WILL MOST CERTAINLEY WATCH THIS AS WELL. MY ? IS THIS
What confuses me is I dont often hear of soldiers from the European side of WW2 talk about hatred for the damn germans as much as I hear of similar hatred soldiers still have 60 years later for the japaneese, is it because it was an unfamilar enemy? Or was it because the level of ferosity was not there in germany, or was it due to the use of bigger guns, tanks, airstrikes and artillery support peices without the heavy use of having to go almost hand to hand in the pacific. Please enlighten,
also as a side note I'm speaking simply of the hatred of Americans vs Germans, Obviously I know Soviets hated Germans plenty and vis versa
You ned to read more. The hatrid of the geramns by the British meant they were fine with the terror fire bombings of geramn cities which bithered many US commanders and flyers.Then look at the British after WWI continuing the blockade of geramny while civilians starved to death in germnany after the surrender until the armistice was signed. Then loo at how the 14 points turned upside down by teh time the euroepan vostors turned to deviding germany colonail possessions and the economic terms that assured no satble grman governamnt other than a dictator.They actually made hitler who defiied it a hero.
THIS QUESTIONS COMES FROM READING A THREAD ABOUT THE PACIFIC THE NEW MINI SERIES ON HBO. I LOVED BAND OF BROTHERS AND WILL MOST CERTAINLEY WATCH THIS AS WELL. MY ? IS THIS
What confuses me is I dont often hear of soldiers from the European side of WW2 talk about hatred for the damn germans as much as I hear of similar hatred soldiers still have 60 years later for the japaneese, is it because it was an unfamilar enemy? Or was it because the level of ferosity was not there in germany, or was it due to the use of bigger guns, tanks, airstrikes and artillery support peices without the heavy use of having to go almost hand to hand in the pacific. Please enlighten,
also as a side note I'm speaking simply of the hatred of Americans vs Germans, Obviously I know Soviets hated Germans plenty and vis versa
It was because the "Japs" attacked us directly, and the Germans didn't.
There were many reasons Americans hated the Japanese. The surprise attack on pearl harbor was likely the greatest and the horrific treatment of American prisoners of war was another. But race clearly influenced American views of the war, particularly because the Japanese behaved in ways that were so alien to American culture that they came to be seen as nearly a different species. Banzai charges, ritual suicide and refusing to surrender, the kamikaze, all had signficant impact on how Americans saw the Japanese. That they looked different than Americans, unlike Germans, made this much easier.
Another factor to consider is that while Americans quickly came to blame the war on Europe not on Germans but the Nazi party (and the German aristocracy to a lesser extent) this was not the case for the most part in the Pacific. There we blamed the whole Japanese nation for the war.
I think what you said makes a lot of sense.
There was a sense that the Japanese were inferior to us, and we were shocked that they were able to pull off a successful surprise attack against such 'superior' people as we thought Americans were.
There were cultural similarities with the Germans that weren't there with the Japanese, and of course many Americans were of German descent, but few were of Japanese descent at that time.
The irony of course is that the Germans were a more dangerous enemy, and this was recognized by the government, which had set a "Germany first" policy even before we entered the war, and held to it despite the Pearl Harbor attack.
And those leaders may well have been as racist as average Americans, so they did not let race influence their judgement. There is an interesting phenemonen then and later in deciding whether to stress war in Europe or Japan. Those who supported the war in Europe tended to be liberals more often than conservatives and to be interested in Europe for economic and cultural reasons. They were internationalists, those who wanted American to be involved generally in the world, and particulalry in Europe.
Those who wanted a pacific strategy had limited interest in Europe, but fasination with Asia. They were often conservatives or former isolationists who really wanted to limit the fighting to deal with Japan. They lost the debate and despite the fact that much of the Cold War was fought in Asia they were displaced in terms of influence by Atlanticists for much of the next sixty years.
I note in passing that the lack of racism against Germany did not prevent the US from firebombing German cities including ones like Dresden with little military value to win the war.
And those leaders may well have been as racist as average Americans, so they did not let race influence their judgement. There is an interesting phenemonen then and later in deciding whether to stress war in Europe or Japan. Those who supported the war in Europe tended to be liberals more often than conservatives and to be interested in Europe for economic and cultural reasons. They were internationalists, those who wanted American to be involved generally in the world, and particulalry in Europe.
Those who wanted a pacific strategy had limited interest in Europe, but fasination with Asia. They were often conservatives or former isolationists who really wanted to limit the fighting to deal with Japan. They lost the debate and despite the fact that much of the Cold War was fought in Asia they were displaced in terms of influence by Atlanticists for much of the next sixty years.
I note in passing that the lack of racism against Germany did not prevent the US from firebombing German cities including ones like Dresden with little military value to win the war.
I think you're right that prejudices (or lack thereof) didn't affect the course of the war.
When I talked about Americans' attitude toward the Japanese, I was talking about individual people, not the government. Many people really did have a very myopic view of the Japanese back then, as primitive slanty-eyed samurai warriors or some such thing. They really didn't take Japan seriously until Pearl Harbor, and then the myopic disdain turned to white hot fury.
But the government chose (correctly in my opinion) a Germany first strategy because overall, Germany was a greater threat to the world order and ultimate US security.
As for the firebombing of German cities, all I can say is that the Germans originated the tactic and dished it out generously to a lot of people who had done nothing to them, so it's hard for me to sympathize.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
