I was going to post this in GQ, then considered the pit, but I guess it is best placed here.
We’ve been attacked on our soil, as best as my history classes and faulty memory recall, twice. Until now.
Stoid, in another thread (and i do not wish to attack him/her) proposed that we forgive the attackers and do nothing. This got me thinking… I was flabbergasted that someone could think that this attack should be met with no action whatsoever. it made me sad, it made me angry. It made me think that perhaps we have devolved into such a supplicating idiocy that perhaps we even deserved this.
Were there actually people two generations ago who proposed that we do nothing after pearl harbor? Is this a new phenomenon? If there are any dopers who were alive during pearl harbor, or anyone who can realate stories, I invite your input.
It just strikes me as unfathonable that anyone could seriously propose that we do nothihng, but perhaps I can be comforted with the knowledge that such wackos existed in our past, and we successfully put them aside and stood up to horrific attacks.
Hawaii wasn’t a state at the time so it wasn’t an attack on U.S. soil.
I guess I see it as the difference between attacking and defending against an aggressor during wartime (whether war is OK is another thread altogether), and tracking down and punishing specific criminals. i’m of the mind too that justice can be done through prosecuting the individuals responsible and not responding as though it is an act of war.
There almost certainly were people who proposed that we do nothing, but nobody could hear their voices in the storm of outrage.
And remember, there was no Internet, no TV, so there was only the radio and the newspapers for the dissemination of information. They didn’t have the vast public forums for endless discussion that we have today. No pundits doing standups in front of the White House, no “Point/Counterpoint” panel discussions rehashing the government’s decisions.
No newspaper editor in his right mind would have published an editorial titled “A Call For Forgiveness” in the December 8, 1941 edition of his paper.
And–Hawaii may not have been technically a state yet, it may not have been legally “U.S. soil”, but it most certainly “belonged to us”, in the public’s mind. We colonized it (so to speak), we brought the Gospel to all those Polynesian heathens, we taught them to grow pineapples, and we located our naval base at one of the Pacific’s finest natural harbors. How dare those Japs bomb our island!!
Washington D.C. isn’t a state, either; is it U.S. soil?
Hawaii WAS a part of the United States then, even if it wasn’t constituted as a “State,” and an attack on a nation’s key military resources is just as bad anyway.
I really think this analogy to Pearl Harbor is being way underexamined. (Perhaps this has been discussed in another thread?) Yes, there are similarities: the surprise, the shock, the loss of life. And, yes, the United States has so little historical experience of direct attack that it’s tempting to lump these events together. But putting that aside, in most ways–in the political and military ways that matter–this attack is not like Pearl Harbor. One was a preemptive strike, an open declaration of war, made by a sovereign nation that, at the time, was itself at war with nations that the US was likely to be sympathic to. Where are the parallels here?
For these reasons, it makes no sense to liken a pacifist response to the recent attacks to a pacificist response to Pearl Harbor. Good arguments can made that, with or without punitive military retaliation, a political response is what is required to lessen the threat of terrorism in the long term. Similarly, good arguments can be made that, as no sovereign nation has as yet been tied directly to these attacks, there is no nation to declare war on. Evidence may emerge that, for some, justifies military action against Afghanistan. But even if it does, IMO it’s unlikely that “terrorism” can be fought in the same way that Hilter’s Reich or the Japanese empire were fought.
FTR, I’m not against the kind of military action that would take a toll directly on those responsible for these evil deeds. But it’s possible that a full-scale war is not necessary to achieve that end. And, in any case, one must know who one’s enemy is before one can declare war on one’s enemy, no? With all respect Zuma, this might be a good time to read up on some of the relevant contexts: the Afghan people, in particular, have had one hell of a history.
US territories are indeed US soil. Sorry I can’t provide a cite at the moment.
Likewise, there were certainly vocal pacifist and isolationist elements in the USA early in WWII, and the fact that the US did not declare war on Germany until after Pearl Harbor reflects this. As already pointed out, however, their voices were drowned out in the general clamor for action after the Japanese attack.
Both then and now, it can be argued that there was/is a “clear and present danger” that needed to be addressed militarily. Both then and now, there were also people who recognized that the source of the conflict was a fundamental cultural misunderstanding on both sides. For me this is the most striking similarity between Pearl Harbor and last Tuesday: Neither side fully comprehends the nature of their enemy, and what that enemy is capable of.
Those who are offended by calls for caution seem generally to be the same people who believe that we will magically eradicate terrorism by the swift application of overwhelming force. I am fairly sure that this will not be the case. This is not to say that nothing should be done; just that we should recognize that due to the nature of our enemy, simply projecting our power is unlikely to prevent more US citizens from dying on our soil during the course of this struggle.
One is Pearl Harbor. What’s the other one you’re referencing, the War of 1812? I think there have been more attacks on US soil besides those two (I seem to recall some minor Japanese shelling of the mainland during WW2). Of course there was the original WTC bombing in 1993, and [robably others that my dilletante knowledge of history is not helping me to recall.
Jeannette Rankin was the lone dissenting vote in the declaration of war against Japan. It was her feeling that any time a woman could vote against war, she should do it. So yes, in answer to the OP, there were people who said America should do nothing when attacked.
For my part, I think what Rankin did was to give credence and ammunition to male chauvinists who claimed that women were incapable of acting rationally in political office. But since that time, real leaders like Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher have repaired any damage Rankin may have done to women’s reputations.
Religiously, Quakers are notoriously pacifist. So I presume many of their numbers were against taking violent action against the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. (I have not, however, been able to find any cites for this.)
I know there are other, similarly inclined, religious groups out there, who presumably had a similar reaction.
Not all of us who don’t want the violence to escalate are advocating doing nothing, either. Some of us would prefer a non-violent solution be found, but understand that, as a first reaction, it is probably not in our country’s best interests. That doesn’t make us any happier about what’s happening - in terms of the US’s reaction.
Of course the whole damn situation is just depressing, anyway.
Jeannette Rankin has already been mentioned; I should nitpick that she was a Representative, not a senator, and holds the distinction of being the first woman ever elected to the House. She was a Republican from Montana, and served in Congress in two separate stints. Coincidentally, both stints occurred when the U.S. voted to join the two World Wars, and she voted against both (she was one of 49 dissenting votes the first time.)
Strange as it may sound that someone would vote against war with Japan then, Rankin was a dedicated pacifist and she had been elected an an anti-war platform.
** WHOA!! ** zuma, I’m sure it was an innocent error on your part, but at no point in any thread have I proposed that we forgive the attackers and do nothing. That is not how I feel, and that is not what I have said. Icarus started that thread about forgiveness, and I don’t think even he suggested that, but I’d have to go check to be sure.
Excuse me. Ms. Rankin was not responsible for the idiocy of men who transform in their pea brains ‘I am a pacifist and inalterably opposed to war’ into ‘I’m a weak woman and by voting against war I prove that all women are weak and irrational.’ Ms. Rankin’s contientious votes, consistent with her beliefs, did no damage to her reputation among anyone who is IMHO of any consequence.
We were indeed attacked on our own soil during the War of 1812. The American Revolution may or may not count, depending on interpretation. The colonial wars also depend on interpretation, I suppose. The Mexican War either began on U.S. or Mexican soil, depending on who you believe (another matter of interpretation, I guess). The U.S. Civil War was certainly fought on someone’s soil, though not against a foreign enemy. WW2 involved ground invasion of the Aleutians, which is even more clearly U.S. “soil” than an air attack.
An interesting parallel to the current situation that I haven’t seen mentioned is the pursuit of Pancho Villa in 1916 (or is it 1917?). Both involved a terrorist attack on U.S. soil and civilan casualties, with incredible outrage on the U.S. side. Both seem at this point to involve regimes that (more or less) sheltered the infamous terrorists, led by a charismatic chief. In both cases, it was unclear if the “host” country could actually apprehend the terrorists. Hopefully, at this point the similarities end: The U.S. had a major military response, invading Mexico and chasing Pancho Villa around Mexico fruitlessly before resistance from the Mexican government came perilously close to open warfare. Segue to U.S. involvement in WW1 (not causal, of course)…
There was a declaration of war following Pearl Harbor (it was supposed to come right before the PH attack). Let me repeat myself: there was a formal declaration of war by the government of Japan. Of course we went to war. Whatever our leaders may say, we do not have a declaration of war here. The people who attacked us are dead. No one government is responsible for these attacks, just some freelance terrorists with some support from a few Islamic states.
I just don’t think the Pearl Harbor analogy is a very good one.
Interestingly no one’s brought up the bombing of Black Tom Island, which has quite a few similarities to the current situation. Prior to the US entering WWI a group of German saboteurs blew up a munitions depot in NY harbour, killing about a dozen peolpe and doing quite a bit of damage, including damaging the Statue of Liberty. If we’re going to suggest that the WTC episode constitutes an attack on US soil and an act of war, then we really have to conclude that this episode was also, particularly considering it was the direct act of a foreign power.
The act was never proven to be the doing of the German government until after the war ended, but even so I’m sure th powers of the day had as much reason to suspect that the German government was to blame as they now have that bin Laden is responsible. Interestingly however the incident generated relatively little publicity at the time and seems to get far more mention in foreign than US history books. Why the difference in reaction to two unprovoked, clandestine attacks on New York carried out by foreign saboteurs/terrorists? Was it just the loss of life? Were the powers that be wary of the public reaction dragging the US into the war before it was ready? Was US MI really so naive and incompetent that it couldn’t see the destruction of munitions destined for France as being a deliberate act of sabotage? Were people simply different and more cautious in 1915, and if so was the difference caused by lack of military confidence in the outcome?
