TPJ and Penelope, I do not know why TPJ did not elaborate on his differences with Howard Zinn about the USA finally entering into WW ll. I do not have an argument to make but thought it might be useful to excerpt some of Zinn's argument:
'For the United States to step forward as a defender of helpless countries matched its image in …
TPJ and Penelope, I do not know why TPJ did not elaborate on his differences with Howard Zinn about the USA finally entering into WW ll. I do not have an argument to make but thought it might be useful to excerpt some of Zinn's argument:
'For the United States to step forward as a defender of helpless countries matched its image in American high school history textbooks, but not its record in world affairs. It had opposed the Haitian revolution for independence from France at the start of the nineteenth century. It had instigated a war with Mexico and taken half of that country. It bad pretended to help Cuba win freedom from Spain, and then planted itself in Cuba with a military base, investments, and rights of intervention. It had seized Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and fought a brutal war to subjugate the Filipinos. It had "opened" Japan to its trade with gunboats and threats. It had declared an Open Door Policy in China as a means of assuring that the United States would have opportunities equal to other imperial powers in exploiting China. It had sent troops to Peking with other nations, to assert Western supremacy in China, and kept them there for over thirty years.'
'While demanding an Open Door in China, it had insisted (with the Monroe Doctrine and many military interventions) on a Closed Door in Latin America-that is, closed to everyone but the United States. It had engineered a revolution against Colombia and created the "independent" state of Panama in order to build and control the Canal. It sent five thousand marines to Nicaragua in 1926 to counter a revolution, and kept a force there for seven years. It intervened in the Dominican Republic for the fourth time in 1916 and kept troops there for eight years. It intervened for the second time in Haiti in 1915 and kept troops there for nineteen years. Between 1900 and 1933, the United States intervened in Cuba four times, in Nicaragua twice, in Panama six times, in Guatemala once, in Honduras seven times. By 1924 the finances of half of the twenty Latin American states were being directed to some extent by the United States. By 1935, over half of U.S. steel and cotton exports were being sold in Latin America.'
'Just before World War I ended, in 1918, an American force of seven thousand landed at Vladivostok as part of an Allied intervention in Russia, and remained until early 1920. Five thousand more troops were landed at Archangel, another Russian port, also as part of an Allied expeditionary force, and stayed for almost a year. The State Department told Congress: "All these operations were to offset effects of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia."
'In short, if the entrance of the United States into World War II was (as so many Americans believed at the time, observing the Nazi invasions) to defend the principle of nonintervention in the affairs of other countries, the nation's record cast doubt on its ability to uphold that principle'.
'What seemed clear at the time was that the United States was a democracy with certain liberties, while Germany was a dictatorship persecuting its Jewish minority, imprisoning dissidents, whatever their religion, while proclaiming the supremacy of the Nordic "race." However, blacks, looking at anti-Semitism in Germany, might not see their own situation in the U.S. as much different. And the United States had done little about Hitler's policies of persecution. Indeed, it had joined England and France in appeasing Hitler throughout the thirties. Roosevelt and his Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, were hesitant to criticize publicly Hitler's anti-Semitic policies; when a resolution was introduced in the Senate in January 1934 asking the Senate and the President to express "surprise and pain" at what the Germans were doing to the Jews, and to ask restoration of Jewish rights, the State Department "caused this resolution to be buried in committee," according to Arnold Offner (American Appeasement)'.
'When Mussolini's Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935, the U.S. declared an embargo on munitions but let American businesses send oil to Italy in huge quantities, which was essential to Italy's carrying on the war. When a Fascist rebellion took place in Spain in 1936 against the elected socialist-liberal government, the Roosevelt administration sponsored a neutrality act that had the effect of shutting off help to the Spanish government while Hitler and Mussolini gave critical aid to Franco. Offner says:
... the United States went beyond even the legal requirements of its neutrality legislation. Had aid been forthcoming from the United States and from England and France, considering that Hitler's position on aid to France was not firm at least until November 1936, the Spanish Republicans could well have triumphed. Instead, Germany gained every advantage from the Spanish civil war.
Was this simply poor judgment, an unfortunate error? Or was it the logical policy of a government whose main interest was not stopping Fascism but advancing the imperial interests of the United States? For those interests, in the thirties, an anti-Soviet policy seemed best. Later, when Japan and Germany threatened U.S. world interests, a pro-Soviet, anti-Nazi policy became preferable. Roosevelt was as much concerned to end the oppression of Jews as Lincoln was to end slavery during the Civil War; their priority in policy (whatever their personal compassion for victims of persecution) was not minority rights, but national power.'
'It was not Hitler's attacks on the Jews that brought the United States into World War II, any more than the enslavement of 4 million blacks brought Civil War in 1861. Italy's attack on Ethiopia, Hitler's invasion of Austria, his takeover of Czechoslovakia, his attack on Poland-none of those events caused the United States to enter the war, although Roosevelt did begin to give important aid to England. What brought the United States fully into the war was the Japanese attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941. Surely it was not the humane concern for Japan's bombing of civilians that led to Roosevelt's outraged call for war-Japan's attack on China in 1937, her bombing of civilians at Nan king, had not provoked the United States to war. It was the Japanese attack on a link in the American Pacific Empire that did it.' (Howard ZinnUSAGermanyJapanfascismUS interventionwarWorld War II)
Differences about our country's motives for entering the war may continue, however, there appears to be no doubt about how crucial it was to the defeat of Nazi Germany.
This is all a very important compilation of actual American history vs. the Patriotic American History taught most of us. I'd like to expand on Zinn's comment about subjugation of the Philippines. At the outset of the Spanish American War, which included the goal of ejecting Spain from the Philippines as well as from Cuba, the U.S. promised to support their independence. A revolution against Spain had begun in the Philippines in 1896; in 1898, revolutionary leaders had declared the Philippines independent of Spain. At the conclusion of the Spanish-American War, the U.S. reneged on that promise, refused to acknowledge the Republic of the Philippines, and ended up with a new war in the Philippines as Filipinos fought to gain their full independence. Full independence was finally achieved in 1948.
I learned this while researching to understand a group of old photographs my cousin had which had just enough clues noted on the back of some to point me to the Philippines and 1900. Several of the photos are of the hanging of 2 Filipino brothers who had led the 'insurgency' against continued American occupation & governance. Also seen in the photos, and confirmed by the author of a 2-volume history of the Philippines, the U.S. Army occupying troops were all black Americans. It's not a pretty story.
For anyone interested in learning more about it, my source is "The Americans in the Philippines", vol. II by James A. Le Roy.
Thank you, Judith. This is exactly the kind of information and source material that I particularly appreciate. Pictures are treasures. Seeing the brothers hanged -- the source for that and photographer are additional points of interest. All Black American soldiers occupying the Philippines is a fact that I must look into. As I wrote that my mind filled the countless promises that I've made to myself... and what did those soldiers come home to?
What I meant was how Black soldiers, when returning from war, who fought valiantly, were again reduced to the insignificant (at best) status they had before they risked their lives for all of us...
Cynthia, I understood your point. I have several questions a) the date b) thinking of the segregation in the Army until Eleanor got involved c) Why all Black soldiers d) not a noble cause of the USA to tear freedom out the hands of Filipinos and subject them e) I have no doubt about how the Black men were treated, except by their families.
I went to check it out, but I am frustrated that there isn’t a recorded version. I’m on the ‘go’ continually, and my husband is working from home 3 days a week so I have headphones on and listen to my books while I’m home or in the car. I want to know more.. so I probably will pursue it when the weather forces me inside. Ever since I started following Dr. R, pretty close to the beginning, my education about our country began in earnest. I have had my eyes open to so much, and it’s rocked me to my core! And what I wouldn’t give to ask my parents and their generation (‘the greatest’!) a thousand questions!
I just celebrated my 70th birthday (or as I prefer to say…my 60-10th) and I feel like I have so much to learn/unlearn about all I thought and it’s overwhelming! But I will keep working at it!
Thanks to all of you (especially Dr. R) for sharing your knowledge,experience, and understanding of the world I thought I knew!
This is a perfect example of the millions of worthwhile books published pre-digital age which will never be digitized or recorded for audio. Those who argue that the internet makes libraries unnecessary are those who seldom read beyond popular fiction or nonfiction.
Published 1970. 2 volumes. Pretty dense detail, useful footnotes. I focused only on the period of the "Philippine Insurrection" (1900-1901) because of the photos but I expect the entire text is like what I read. The info about hanging the two brothers, leaders of the guerillas, was in a footnote, pp.211-212.
Thanks for this excerpt, Fern. Yes, this answered my quizzical puzzle pieces after reading Zinn's book that just did not match up to our very belated response to that war. I dared to ask a similar question to my octogenarian, adopted Swiss grandparents 35 years ago— why did Switzerland not join in the fight against Hitler during the war? I loved them, but their answers were incredibly limp and they appeared to want to avoid discussion. I just wanted to hear their perspectives, which must be very complicated for that little country to be surrounded by the German occupation in Europe. But why, I wondered, was the World Jewish Congress suing Swiss banks...I just wondered about that....
Even with Pearl Harbour, there was a significant arguement at the time about limiting the war to the Pacific. It's always interesting to compare professed war aims with the final outcome. Post 1918 American companies had successfully ousted their UK rivals from all of their investments in Argentina. Post- 1945 gave "carte blanche" to American Corporations under the hegemony of the US military umbrella....re-arming the world and feeding growth at home. They also maintained control over Uk's gold reserves and the horrendously overvalued exchange rate of the Pound to the dollar until lend-lease debts were truly paid for....till end of 1950s....ruining any chance oif economic recovery.
This, and previous posts, are the kinds of history of this country that have made me a non-patriot. My first loyalty has always been to the planet and its natural wonders and creatures, then humanity, and I'm not sure where America comes into it - except that I was born here, I live here, I vote here, and I do my best to do things that encourage this country to progress toward achieving its promise. But I can't salute the flag, I don't put my hand over my heart during the national anthem, I won't engage in jingoistic sentimentality that proclaims this to be the greatest country in the world. I don't think any country can legitimately lay claim to that title. However, I believe that it is our responsibility as citizens of this particular country to work to make it a good place for those who live here and to cooperate with other countries that seek the best for their own citizens.
And, Stuart, do I remember this correctly? I believe my husband told me that after WWII ended, the Brits had to destroy a lot of US military equipment as part of the deal of helping out. I recall things like like perfectly good Jeeps had to be dumped into the ocean? It sounded crazy to me and still does to me now for so several reasons. Interestingly, today, my youngest grandson in his mid twenties has been apprenticed to a man who restores and completely re-builds WWII American jeeps for re-sale. Guess they were not ALL dumped in the ocean! They are running low on Jeeps and parts now. I told my grandson that It would be interesting to see what is stored under tattered tarps in lovely old barns out around that southern countryside! I would imagine France must have had the same deal?
France was more than somewhat disorganized at the time in every domaine...except the Black Market wher most of the American equipment ended up...and many such jeeps are still running around in Provence...très chic!
Yes. In the 30’s leading capitalists feared communism spreading to the US more than they wanted to be the protector of human rights! Thus, wait and see who prevails regarding Russia vs Germany!
TPJ and Penelope, I do not know why TPJ did not elaborate on his differences with Howard Zinn about the USA finally entering into WW ll. I do not have an argument to make but thought it might be useful to excerpt some of Zinn's argument:
'For the United States to step forward as a defender of helpless countries matched its image in American high school history textbooks, but not its record in world affairs. It had opposed the Haitian revolution for independence from France at the start of the nineteenth century. It had instigated a war with Mexico and taken half of that country. It bad pretended to help Cuba win freedom from Spain, and then planted itself in Cuba with a military base, investments, and rights of intervention. It had seized Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and fought a brutal war to subjugate the Filipinos. It had "opened" Japan to its trade with gunboats and threats. It had declared an Open Door Policy in China as a means of assuring that the United States would have opportunities equal to other imperial powers in exploiting China. It had sent troops to Peking with other nations, to assert Western supremacy in China, and kept them there for over thirty years.'
'While demanding an Open Door in China, it had insisted (with the Monroe Doctrine and many military interventions) on a Closed Door in Latin America-that is, closed to everyone but the United States. It had engineered a revolution against Colombia and created the "independent" state of Panama in order to build and control the Canal. It sent five thousand marines to Nicaragua in 1926 to counter a revolution, and kept a force there for seven years. It intervened in the Dominican Republic for the fourth time in 1916 and kept troops there for eight years. It intervened for the second time in Haiti in 1915 and kept troops there for nineteen years. Between 1900 and 1933, the United States intervened in Cuba four times, in Nicaragua twice, in Panama six times, in Guatemala once, in Honduras seven times. By 1924 the finances of half of the twenty Latin American states were being directed to some extent by the United States. By 1935, over half of U.S. steel and cotton exports were being sold in Latin America.'
'Just before World War I ended, in 1918, an American force of seven thousand landed at Vladivostok as part of an Allied intervention in Russia, and remained until early 1920. Five thousand more troops were landed at Archangel, another Russian port, also as part of an Allied expeditionary force, and stayed for almost a year. The State Department told Congress: "All these operations were to offset effects of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia."
'In short, if the entrance of the United States into World War II was (as so many Americans believed at the time, observing the Nazi invasions) to defend the principle of nonintervention in the affairs of other countries, the nation's record cast doubt on its ability to uphold that principle'.
'What seemed clear at the time was that the United States was a democracy with certain liberties, while Germany was a dictatorship persecuting its Jewish minority, imprisoning dissidents, whatever their religion, while proclaiming the supremacy of the Nordic "race." However, blacks, looking at anti-Semitism in Germany, might not see their own situation in the U.S. as much different. And the United States had done little about Hitler's policies of persecution. Indeed, it had joined England and France in appeasing Hitler throughout the thirties. Roosevelt and his Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, were hesitant to criticize publicly Hitler's anti-Semitic policies; when a resolution was introduced in the Senate in January 1934 asking the Senate and the President to express "surprise and pain" at what the Germans were doing to the Jews, and to ask restoration of Jewish rights, the State Department "caused this resolution to be buried in committee," according to Arnold Offner (American Appeasement)'.
'When Mussolini's Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935, the U.S. declared an embargo on munitions but let American businesses send oil to Italy in huge quantities, which was essential to Italy's carrying on the war. When a Fascist rebellion took place in Spain in 1936 against the elected socialist-liberal government, the Roosevelt administration sponsored a neutrality act that had the effect of shutting off help to the Spanish government while Hitler and Mussolini gave critical aid to Franco. Offner says:
... the United States went beyond even the legal requirements of its neutrality legislation. Had aid been forthcoming from the United States and from England and France, considering that Hitler's position on aid to France was not firm at least until November 1936, the Spanish Republicans could well have triumphed. Instead, Germany gained every advantage from the Spanish civil war.
Was this simply poor judgment, an unfortunate error? Or was it the logical policy of a government whose main interest was not stopping Fascism but advancing the imperial interests of the United States? For those interests, in the thirties, an anti-Soviet policy seemed best. Later, when Japan and Germany threatened U.S. world interests, a pro-Soviet, anti-Nazi policy became preferable. Roosevelt was as much concerned to end the oppression of Jews as Lincoln was to end slavery during the Civil War; their priority in policy (whatever their personal compassion for victims of persecution) was not minority rights, but national power.'
'It was not Hitler's attacks on the Jews that brought the United States into World War II, any more than the enslavement of 4 million blacks brought Civil War in 1861. Italy's attack on Ethiopia, Hitler's invasion of Austria, his takeover of Czechoslovakia, his attack on Poland-none of those events caused the United States to enter the war, although Roosevelt did begin to give important aid to England. What brought the United States fully into the war was the Japanese attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941. Surely it was not the humane concern for Japan's bombing of civilians that led to Roosevelt's outraged call for war-Japan's attack on China in 1937, her bombing of civilians at Nan king, had not provoked the United States to war. It was the Japanese attack on a link in the American Pacific Empire that did it.' (Howard ZinnUSAGermanyJapanfascismUS interventionwarWorld War II)
Differences about our country's motives for entering the war may continue, however, there appears to be no doubt about how crucial it was to the defeat of Nazi Germany.
This is all a very important compilation of actual American history vs. the Patriotic American History taught most of us. I'd like to expand on Zinn's comment about subjugation of the Philippines. At the outset of the Spanish American War, which included the goal of ejecting Spain from the Philippines as well as from Cuba, the U.S. promised to support their independence. A revolution against Spain had begun in the Philippines in 1896; in 1898, revolutionary leaders had declared the Philippines independent of Spain. At the conclusion of the Spanish-American War, the U.S. reneged on that promise, refused to acknowledge the Republic of the Philippines, and ended up with a new war in the Philippines as Filipinos fought to gain their full independence. Full independence was finally achieved in 1948.
I learned this while researching to understand a group of old photographs my cousin had which had just enough clues noted on the back of some to point me to the Philippines and 1900. Several of the photos are of the hanging of 2 Filipino brothers who had led the 'insurgency' against continued American occupation & governance. Also seen in the photos, and confirmed by the author of a 2-volume history of the Philippines, the U.S. Army occupying troops were all black Americans. It's not a pretty story.
For anyone interested in learning more about it, my source is "The Americans in the Philippines", vol. II by James A. Le Roy.
Thank you, Judith. This is exactly the kind of information and source material that I particularly appreciate. Pictures are treasures. Seeing the brothers hanged -- the source for that and photographer are additional points of interest. All Black American soldiers occupying the Philippines is a fact that I must look into. As I wrote that my mind filled the countless promises that I've made to myself... and what did those soldiers come home to?
I’m sure it was not a heroes welcome…. I am continually ashamed of what how ‘brethren’ have treated our ‘brethren’…
This one surprised me and will check it out - when - ?!
Are you responding to me?
Yes, Cynthia to your ' how ‘....brethren’ have treated our ‘brethren’…
What I meant was how Black soldiers, when returning from war, who fought valiantly, were again reduced to the insignificant (at best) status they had before they risked their lives for all of us...
Cynthia, I understood your point. I have several questions a) the date b) thinking of the segregation in the Army until Eleanor got involved c) Why all Black soldiers d) not a noble cause of the USA to tear freedom out the hands of Filipinos and subject them e) I have no doubt about how the Black men were treated, except by their families.
I went to check it out, but I am frustrated that there isn’t a recorded version. I’m on the ‘go’ continually, and my husband is working from home 3 days a week so I have headphones on and listen to my books while I’m home or in the car. I want to know more.. so I probably will pursue it when the weather forces me inside. Ever since I started following Dr. R, pretty close to the beginning, my education about our country began in earnest. I have had my eyes open to so much, and it’s rocked me to my core! And what I wouldn’t give to ask my parents and their generation (‘the greatest’!) a thousand questions!
I just celebrated my 70th birthday (or as I prefer to say…my 60-10th) and I feel like I have so much to learn/unlearn about all I thought and it’s overwhelming! But I will keep working at it!
Thanks to all of you (especially Dr. R) for sharing your knowledge,experience, and understanding of the world I thought I knew!
This is a perfect example of the millions of worthwhile books published pre-digital age which will never be digitized or recorded for audio. Those who argue that the internet makes libraries unnecessary are those who seldom read beyond popular fiction or nonfiction.
😞
I will add the Le Roy book to my list.
Published 1970. 2 volumes. Pretty dense detail, useful footnotes. I focused only on the period of the "Philippine Insurrection" (1900-1901) because of the photos but I expect the entire text is like what I read. The info about hanging the two brothers, leaders of the guerillas, was in a footnote, pp.211-212.
Thanks for this excerpt, Fern. Yes, this answered my quizzical puzzle pieces after reading Zinn's book that just did not match up to our very belated response to that war. I dared to ask a similar question to my octogenarian, adopted Swiss grandparents 35 years ago— why did Switzerland not join in the fight against Hitler during the war? I loved them, but their answers were incredibly limp and they appeared to want to avoid discussion. I just wanted to hear their perspectives, which must be very complicated for that little country to be surrounded by the German occupation in Europe. But why, I wondered, was the World Jewish Congress suing Swiss banks...I just wondered about that....
Questions, curiosity, learning, communicating and participating...crucial aspects of citizenship and the of LFAA. Salud, Penelope.
Salud back, Fern!
Even with Pearl Harbour, there was a significant arguement at the time about limiting the war to the Pacific. It's always interesting to compare professed war aims with the final outcome. Post 1918 American companies had successfully ousted their UK rivals from all of their investments in Argentina. Post- 1945 gave "carte blanche" to American Corporations under the hegemony of the US military umbrella....re-arming the world and feeding growth at home. They also maintained control over Uk's gold reserves and the horrendously overvalued exchange rate of the Pound to the dollar until lend-lease debts were truly paid for....till end of 1950s....ruining any chance oif economic recovery.
Stuart, Penelope, Judith, et al.:
Lanita Grice (WA, the state)just now
This, and previous posts, are the kinds of history of this country that have made me a non-patriot. My first loyalty has always been to the planet and its natural wonders and creatures, then humanity, and I'm not sure where America comes into it - except that I was born here, I live here, I vote here, and I do my best to do things that encourage this country to progress toward achieving its promise. But I can't salute the flag, I don't put my hand over my heart during the national anthem, I won't engage in jingoistic sentimentality that proclaims this to be the greatest country in the world. I don't think any country can legitimately lay claim to that title. However, I believe that it is our responsibility as citizens of this particular country to work to make it a good place for those who live here and to cooperate with other countries that seek the best for their own citizens.
And, Stuart, do I remember this correctly? I believe my husband told me that after WWII ended, the Brits had to destroy a lot of US military equipment as part of the deal of helping out. I recall things like like perfectly good Jeeps had to be dumped into the ocean? It sounded crazy to me and still does to me now for so several reasons. Interestingly, today, my youngest grandson in his mid twenties has been apprenticed to a man who restores and completely re-builds WWII American jeeps for re-sale. Guess they were not ALL dumped in the ocean! They are running low on Jeeps and parts now. I told my grandson that It would be interesting to see what is stored under tattered tarps in lovely old barns out around that southern countryside! I would imagine France must have had the same deal?
France was more than somewhat disorganized at the time in every domaine...except the Black Market wher most of the American equipment ended up...and many such jeeps are still running around in Provence...très chic!
Yes. In the 30’s leading capitalists feared communism spreading to the US more than they wanted to be the protector of human rights! Thus, wait and see who prevails regarding Russia vs Germany!