Comments on: Ten years after Pearl Harbor

By: TB

TB — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:56:18 +0000

I’m not sure why Hiroshima and Nagasaki would generate any more or less guilt than, for example, the firebombing of Tokyo, Dresden, or any other campaign of strategic bombing that, over time, generated similar civilian casualties.

By: Jeff-Wash

Jeff-Wash — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:28:56 +0000

In addition, a little off topic, speaking of Hiroshima, President Truman felt guilty in the years
after 1945 over the fact that 10,000′s of civilians perished in Hiroshima because of his decision.

In fact I suspect that his guilt
may have played a role in his reluctance to see tactical nukes
and their delivery systems developed
in the years between 1945-1950.
It was only with Stalin detonating his own atomic device in 1949, and the Korean War a year later, which convinced a reluctant Truman to develop the even more horrible (strategic) H-Bomb and developing tactical nukes as well.
It was in 1950 that Truman authorized Von Braun’s team
to develop the Redstone tactical nuke rocket, even though Von Braun had been pushing for the development of a Redstone type rocket since 1946.
Imagine what would have resulted if Truman had approved
of the development of a 200 mile range tactical nuke missile in 1946 instead of 1950.
The US could have launched a miniature artificial satellite as early as 1950-1951.

By: Jeff-Wash

Jeff-Wash — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:18:47 +0000

There’s also the guilt that was felt by many Americans over the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki; not to mention the forced removal of all those of Japanese origin from the American westcoast during WW2.
So I think most Americans wanted
to forget the events of Pearl Harbor ten years later, because of those two things I’ve mentioned, and because so many American and Japanese lives were lost in WW2. Americans were also more interested in the growing economic prosperity in the early 50′s & raising their families; leaving the past years of troubles, 1929-1945, behind.

By: Jeff-Wash

Jeff-Wash — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:09:05 +0000

Agreed! It’s too painful.

By: ER

ER — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:01:48 +0000

The common people in warring countries used to go right back to normal trade and travel as soon as their governments signed peace treaties. That doesn’t seem to be as much the case now.

Although I do agree with you about the fundamental differences between Pearl Harbor and 9/11, the sense of outrage and violation must have been the same. My mother was in her 20s during WWII, and she never forgave the Japanese or the Germans (even though they had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor); not even the Germans and Japanese born after the war ended.

Still, this is a new world. As far as I can tell, there has not been a formal declaration of war anywhere on earth since the USSR declared war on Japan in 1945.

By: TB

TB — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 15:05:38 +0000

The simplest explanation was that Japan was an ally by 1951, and things were different. Wars seemed to settle things a lot more back in the old days.

I presented it as something interesting I hadn’t known. Pearl Harbor and 9/11, despite surface similarities, are actually apples and oranges.

By: ER

ER — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:04:45 +0000

As I’ve alluded before, the wallowing in 9/11 nostalgia is not for me, in fact, I feel it a form of disrespect for the victims and heroes of that day. A dignified and solemn ceremony, a moment of silence or a prayer, and a footnote in the press about those ceremonies, would have been better than an all-out media frenzy.

The material you have presented could be explained in two ways.

First, the government in 1951 could still pressure the media into toning down (or boosting) a news story to bring it into line with national foreign policy objectives.

Second, the media, not as desperate for any means of pumping up ratings (or selling newspapers) so they could please their advertisers as they are today, could afford to act in a more restrained manner.

Patriotic displays and demonstrations are important, and they are good. They should not be ignored or forgotten, and they should never be dismissed or ridiculed. But neither should they be cynically exploited or made into garish publicity events, or used to strut and swagger; spectacles which we cannot even wince at for fear of being accused of being “unpatriotic”. It cheapens the sentiment and insults that which it should honor.