Nagumo at the Battle of Midway

Japan's Top Carrier Commander Experiences a Decisive Loss

© Michael Streich

 Mar 20, 2009

Vice Admiral Nagumo's string of successes included Pearl Harbor, Rabaul, Port Darwin, and Ceylon, leading to a feeling of invincibility & causing the blunders at Midway.

Up to June 4, 1942, the naval career of Japanese Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo had been stellar during the first months of the Pacific war. As Japan’s top carrier commander, Nagumo’s carrier strike force attacked Pearl Harbor on Sunday morning, December 7, 1941. The surprise attack was a success, although no American carriers were affected. Between Pearl Harbor and Midway, Nagumo’s carriers expanded Japanese domination of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. It was Admiral Yamamoto’s “decisive” Midway battle, however, that ended Nagumo’s string of successes. These successes also led to a notion of Japanese invincibility and over-confidence.

From Pearl Harbor to Midway Island

The attack on Pearl Harbor was simultaneous with other Japanese actions in the South Pacific. In these actions, Vice Admiral Nagumo played a significant role. His victories at Rabaul and Port Darwin were followed by a swing into the Indian Ocean with the intent of destroying British naval forces and bases centered at Ceylon.

Nagumo’s destruction of the Colombo naval base, including naval repair shops, railroads, and an airfield, enabled Japan to establish a defensive perimeter from Southeast Asia to Singapore while confining British naval threats to east Africa. The April 1942 campaign left his fleet sorely in need of overhaul as plans were already finalized to begin the Midway operation in early June.

Nagumo at the Battle of Midway

At the time Nagumo’s carrier force was within striking distance of Midway, Japanese intelligence had not discovered the presence of two American carrier task forces, let alone their exact locations. Task Force 16, commanded by Rear Admiral Ray Spruance, included the Hornet and the Enterprise; Task Force 17, led by Rear Admiral Frank Fletcher, included the recently repaired Yorktown, heavily damaged at the Coral Sea months earlier.

Although Nagumo was supported by Vice Admiral Kondo’s invasion fleet, Yamamoto had divided his carriers, a mistake that might have been a factor in the overall battle plan. Nagumo’s air strike against Midway depleted his planes. When the American carriers launched their attacks against Nagumo’s four carriers, he was outnumbered. If Nagumo had the light carriers Ryujo and Junyo, part of the diversionary operation at the Aleutians, the odds might have been in his favor.

Poor intelligence was also a key factor in Nagumo’s staggering losses. According to Paul Dull, “Nagumo’s air reconnaissance was grossly inadequate…” The inability to know the American carrier strength caught Nagumo off-guard as he exposed his flight decks while rearming his planes. Dull states: “The confusion involved in changing the armament of his planes after the Tone’s No. 4 plane sighted an enemy carrier was also the fault of his inefficient communications system.” (167)

Louis Allen cites possible Japanese over-reaching in the Bay of Bengal during the Ceylon operation as a long range factor at the Coral Sea and Midway. “If…Nagumo had not reached out for Ceylon…the carrier group might not have been short of skilled pilots and might have avoided the reverses….in the Coral Sea and at Midway.” (34)

Defeat of First Mobile Force, Carrier Strike Force

After dispatching the heavy carriers Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu, American aircraft located Hiryu, which had become separated from the main force. By the end of the battle, all four carriers had been destroyed. The Americans lost the Yorktown. Vice Admiral Nagumo was reassigned as Yamamoto ordered a withdrawal, unable to lure Admiral Spruance into a night battle involving capital ships.

Vice Admiral Nagumo committed suicide in 1944 at the end of the battle for Saipan, shot in the back of the head by a naval officer who had volunteered for the task. The long career of the “diminutive” admiral, known for his gruffness and uncommunicativeness, had ended. He was promoted to full admiral posthumously.

Sources:

Louis Allen, The Politics and Strategy of the Second World War: Singapore 1941-1942, series edited by Noble Frankland and Christopher Dowling (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1977).

Paul S. Dull, A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy (1941-1945) (United States Naval Institute, 1978).

John Toland, The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1933-1945, Vol. 2 (New York: Random House, 1970).

The copyright of the article Nagumo at the Battle of Midway in WW II History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Nagumo at the Battle of Midway in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Admiral Nagumo

 

Pagan Origins of Christmas

Ancient World and Barbarian Influences on December 25th

Oct 14, 2009 Michael Streich

Almost all accepted Christmas celebrations are traced to Near Eastern, Roman, and pagan barbarian cultures that were adopted by the Church to legitimize December 25th.

Christmas, as a Christian day of celebration, is traced back to the 3rd and 4th centuries at a time the growing church institution began to define theological beliefs as an ordered system. December 25th, coming only four days after the Winter Solstice (depending on which calendar style is being used), corresponded to a number of ancient celebrations honoring the sun. When later Protestant groups like the Pilgrims and Puritans identified Christmas as a pagan celebration and refused to honor it, they were accurate in describing the “heathen” (Fraser) origins of Christmas.

Mithras and the “Heavenly Goddess”

The ancient Near Eastern cult of Mithras was a potent rival to early Christianity, featuring a number of similarities in belief. In fact, late 3rd Century persecutions of Christians, notably under Diocletian and Galerius, strongly identified Christians as just another version of the cult of Mithras.

The cult of Mithras found support in Egypt, the same hotbed of early Christian heretical beliefs such as Donatism and Arianism. In Egypt, adherents equated the nativity with the birth of the sun as well as the birth of Mithras which occurred on December 25th. Their celebrations included the image of an infant that was conceived by the Heavenly Goddess, a deity also associated with the Middle East goddess Astarte.

According to social anthropologist, Sir James Fraser, the celebration was marked by lights and festivities. His conclusions suggest that early Christians “borrowed directly from” their “heathen rival” by establishing the date of Christ’s birth on December 25th.

Roman Influences

Astronomy and anthropology professor Anthony Aveni states that the official church designation for Christmas on December 25th came in 354 CE. In the pagan Roman tradition, December 25th was also devoted to the sun. The birthday of the sun was celebrated by the lighting of candles and the day itself was identified with both Apollo and Mithras.

This was also the Roman Saturnalia, a celebration of seasonal cycles that began a period of revelry and carnivalesque behavior. This continued with the early church well into the Middle Ages when the period of Christmas (so named in 1058 from the terms Cristes Maesse or Mass of Christ) became a time of misrule, boy bishops, and festival. According to Aveni, during the celebration of Saturnalia presents were exchanged and pagan temples adorned with new sprigs, the forerunner of mistletoe. Aveni writes that “Saturnalia strengthened the social hierarchy.”

Other Historical Roots of Christmas Celebrations

The decorated Christmas tree is traced back to the pagan peoples of barbarian Europe, particularly the Germanic groups, that hung gifts meant for their deities on sacred trees. Similarly, the Yule log is frequently traced to Scandinavia where a large tree trunk was burned on the night of the Winter Solstice. The etymology of the word “jolly” finds roots in the Nordic term “jol” which is associated with yule.

Christmas caroling is traced to the 11th Century CE and equated with the Halloween practice of “trick or treat” in which the carolers hope for food or drink in return for their singing. Protestants viewing Christmas through a strict prism might be interested in knowing that the Christmas crèche, universal today in churches celebrating Christmas, began with the Catholic saint Francis of Assisi, who also instituted the “Midnight Mass.”

Post Modern Christmas Considerations

Contemporary Christmas celebrations have added new icons and practices. The commercialization of Christmas has made the holiday a barometer of consumer spending, able to affect stock markets and bankrupt retailers unable to compete in the shopping frenzy.

New icons like Rudolph, Frosty the Snowman, Scrooge and his ghosts, and the wily Grinch have redefined the holiday. Ironically, the same Christian groups that decry these icons as well as rabid consumerism wish to return to a Christmas celebration that was steeped in pagan origins.

Sources:

• Anthony Aveni, The Book of the Year: A Brief History of Our Seasonal Holidays (Oxford University Press, 2003)
• Sir James George Fraser, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion (New York: the Macmillan Company, 1966)

 

Christmas and Candlemas in Medieval Times

When Christians Disposed of Trees and Household Greenery

Dec 21, 2009 Michael Streich

Indoor greenery from the Winter Solstice until Candlemas ensured the return of vegetation while candles and other household fire anticipated the return of spring.

   

When to bring Christmas trees and other seasonal greenery into the house and when to dispose of such items is more than superstition. Traditional customs governing these aspects of the Christmas celebration are rooted in pre-Christian Europe as well as Roman practices. Indoor greenery, coupled with fire – a Yule Log or candles, referred to agricultural concerns and the anticipation of the return of the sun and planting season. Prior to the early modern period, Christians did not dispose of indoor greenery until February 2nd, Candlemas – or the Feast of the Purification of the Virgin in the Medieval Church calendar.

The Christmas tree and other Indoor Greenery

The Winter Solstice represented the high point of darkness and silence. Even the earliest human communities grew accustomed to the seasonal changes and looked to the heavens to appease the spirits or gods that were believed to control the patterns of nature. Over time, rituals became more elaborate and ensconced in festival patterns repeated yearly as part of on-going cycles celebrating the harmonization of nature and human communities. During the Roman Saturnalia, laurel and other greenery was hung in homes and in temples, a tradition later fused with early Christian practices.

As Christian missionaries made their way into pagan Northern Europe, similar customs were encountered and adopted into the ecclesiastical cycles charted by the church. The practice of bringing greenery into a house - whether holly, ivy, bay, mistletoe, or rosemary, at the time of the winter solstice served several purposes. The old pagan ideals of superstitious “good luck” tied to the return of vegetation also provided sacramental order within the ecclesiastical calendar, ensuring uniformity of worship.

Christmas trees were not brought into a house until Christmas Eve. In the modern tradition, they were not discarded until Twelfth Night. For many Christians, Epiphany signaled the end of the Christmas period. But according to medieval tradition, no indoor greenery was disposed of until Candlemas. February 2nd represented the end of the official Christmas season for the church. The blessing of candles at Candlemas was the transition from darkness to light and symbolic of all life, not just vegetation.

Candlemas and the Importance of Light

Candlemas originated in the 4th Century and is tied to both the Purification of the Virgin Mary and the presentation of Jesus in the temple. Candles, in church tradition, have always been symbolic of Christ as “light of the world.” It is therefore logical that the Feast of Christ’s presentation in the temple should be accompanied by the blessing of candles.

On Candlemas Eve, Medieval Christians brought candles to the church to be blessed. These included large family candles that were only lit at times of death or during storms, although some researchers differentiate between these family candles and “rain-or-storm-candles.” So-called “penny candles” were used during Advent and All Souls. Slender, red candles were lit during childbirth.

It is evident that the magical use of candles, although part of church sacramentals, was tied to several important themes: Christ as light of the world who brings life, sustains life, and promises eternal life. Since most Christians in the Middle Ages were peasants (estimates are 98% of the European population) engaged in some type of farming, these images were not only important but tied peasants closely to church order and conformity.

Christmas Greenery and Christmas Light

The presence of fresh greenery and light, from candles or a traditional Yule Log, pointed to the return of spring and fertility. The growth of the church in Europe and the ecclesiastical seasonal cycle imposed on the faithful incorporated these often magical traditions. Like the blessing of votives in the Temples of Diana on her festival days in Ancient Rome, so also the church blessed candles before the sacrificial altar. Christmas and Candlemas and indelibly linked.

Sources:

• Charles Panati, Sacred Origins of Profound Things (Penguin, 1996)
• R.W. Scribner, Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany (London: the Hambledon Press, 1987)

Rudolph Demonstrates Earlier Values in American Culture

Michael Streich November 4, 2009 

1964 was, according to writer Jon Margolis, the “last innocent year” and the “beginning of the ‘sixties.’” It was the year the Beatles first appeared on the Billboard chart with “I Want to Hold Your Hand” and it was the year the Beatles made their American debut, first on the Ed Sullivan Show and then live at the Washington, DC Coliseum. Muhammad Ali became world heavyweight boxing champion and Sidney Poitier was the first African American to win a Best Actor award. 1964 was also the debut of America’s most enduring Christmas specials, “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer,” on December 6^th, sponsored exclusively by General Electric.

 

The United States Over Fifty Years ago

 

“Rudolph” aired five months after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed by Congress and one month after Lyndon Johnson became president. It was a time Americans, every wary of worldwide Communism and the Domino Theory, were moving closer to the tragedy of Vietnam. Whether by accident or subtly indirect, “Rudolph,” in many ways, paralleled those fears while positing the notion that in the end, good always triumphs over evil.

 

Despite being treated as a misfit by everyone including his father, Donner, Rudolph remained polite, addressing everyone as “sir.” Jeopardizing his own life for the good of his friends, he secretly left the Island of Misfit toys alone, his shiny nose making him a sure target of the Abominable Snow Monster. These were powerful messages for children watching the story on television.

 

The Abominable or “Bumble” represented the antithesis of all Rudolph was taught to believe. According to Sam the Snowman, “He’s mean and nasty…and he hates anything to do with Christmas.” Nothing could be more un-American in 1964 than hating Christmas. In the original screenplay, Donner advises his son that “Someday…we’ll be rid of that Abominable Snow Monster, then Christmasville will be safe for good.”

 

Gender Roles and Masculine Stereotypes

 

Rudolph’s nose sets him apart, much like Hermey’s desire to be a dentist, hardly a suitable profession for an elf. Yet Hermey doesn’t even look like an elf, making him a misfit all the more. In both cases, the characters are mocked and shunned because they don’t fit into established male roles. When Donner decides to finally brave the storm and search for his buck, he forbids his wife to join him: “this is man’s work.”

 

Eventually, both Mrs. Donner and Rudolph’s girlfriend Clarice break the norms and set off on their own. The entire party is captured by the Snow Monster and held in his cave. Rudolph attempts to fight the monster but is knocked unconscious. At this point, Yukon, Rudolph’s friend from the journey to the Island of Misfit Toys, and Hermey use ingenuity and subterfuge to neutralize the beast by pulling his teeth. Once the teeth are pulled, the threat is over.

 

Aftermath and Redemption

 

Both Rudolph and Hermey are welcomed back, each allowed to find their niche within the conformity of Christmas Town. Even the Abominable, now tamed, joins the community, finding a positive way to make a difference. Christmas is saved from cancellation when Rudolph’s nose enables Santa to cut through the fog and make his deliveries.

 

The story of Rudolph, taken from Robert May’s 1939 story and Johnny Marks’ 1949 hit song, represented sacrifice, heroism, social acceptance, and perseverance. American children were taught these same traits in school in regard to the Cold War. “Rudolph” merely reinforced this message.

 

Sources:

 

Rick Goldschmidt, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer: The Making of the Rankin/Bass Holiday Classic (Bridgeview, Il: Miser Bros. Press, 2001)

Jon Margolis, The Last Innocent Year: America in 1964 (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1999)

Karal Ann Marling, Merry Christmas: Celebrating America’s Greatest Holiday (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000)

Any republication of this article in any form may only be made with the written permission of the author.

 The Wizard of Oz as Allegory and Fairy Tale

Deconstructing a Classic American Book Written for Children

• Jun 12, 2009
• Michael Streich

Ever Since Henry Littlefield's 1964 interpretations of the Wizard of Oz as political allegory were published, scholars have attempted to build on that analysis.

Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz has, for decades, been taught as an example of Gilded Age political allegory, reflecting Populism and the gold versus silver debate. Popular American History survey texts like America Past & Present (Robert A. Divine, Et Al., Pearson/Longman) devote 2-page feature essays to the interpretation. Baum himself, writing in April 1900, states that the book “was written solely to please children of today.” How is the Wizard of Oz to be viewed?

The Interpretations of Henry Littlefield

Henry M. Littlefield’s interpretations of Baum’s book were published in 1964. Littlefield, a high school teacher, attempted to provide students with a more interesting way to understand the Populist issues of the late 19th Century. David B. Parker, writing in Journal of the Georgia Association of Historians, [1] analyzes subsequent interpretations that took Littlefield’s conclusions further.

Writing in March, 1988 (Los Angeles Times), Michael A. Genovese, then at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, gives readers the allegorical representations:

• Dorothy is Everyman
• The Tin Woodman is the Industrial Worker
• The Scarecrow is the Farmer
• The Cowardly Lion is William Jennings Bryan
• The Wizard is the President
• The Munchkins are the “little people”
• The Yellow Brick Road is the Gold Standard
• The Wicked Witch of the East represents bankers and capitalists

The deconstruction of the Oz story continued. A college essay, posted on the Cornell University website and written by Grant Wang and Dan Jacobs goes even further. As an example, quoting from the book, Wang and Jacobs related the broken or missing yellow bricks in the road to Oz as Baum’s way of revealing “his opinion that although the gold standard had holes and obstacles, it could still last through the long haul.”

The Wizard of Oz as a Fairy Tale

Psychology Professor Sheldon Cashdan, in his book The Witch Must Die, analyzes Baum’s story as “a fairy tale not only for our time but for all time” and compares the tale’s dynamics to other popular fairy tales. [2] According to Cashdan, Dorothy’s trip to Oz reflects the unconscious and the many twists and turns are a “metaphor for personal growth.”

Cashdan’s chapter on Baum’s story highlights the multi-faceted way scholars can take a story and suggest a myriad of interpretations. Was Baum influenced by folklore, as happens in many fairy tales? [3] To what extend did Baum support and sympathize with Populism.

An Alternative View of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

David Parker quotes from a 1919 biographical piece written by Martin Gardner about Baum and his political beliefs and activities. Gardner concluded that Baum was “inactive in politics” but his sympathies were “on the side of the laboring classes.” Could these have been Baum’s munchkins who, in his book, slaved night and day for the Wicked Witch of the East?

But Baum also supported women’s suffrage. Dorothy might have better represented the emerging feminist whose self-actualization prepared her to kill the evil witch at the end of the story. Dorothy, a girl, was the leader of the intrepid troupe. Cashdan identified and analyzed each specific “shortcoming” relative to the Scarecrow, Lion, and Woodsman.

Yet it was Dorothy whose adventures and confrontations with evil brought out the missing elements in each companion. It was Dorothy who ultimately killed the witch and exposed the wizard as a hypocrite. Dorothy emerges as the heroine, having overcome tremendous obstacles.

Many Ways to Interpret Oz

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz might have been written, as Baum stated, simply as a modern fairy tale. But, like the popular Hollywood interpretation that can easily be used to allegorize the Great Depression, it can be seen in many intriguing ways.

Sources:

• [1] David Parker, “The Rise and Fall of the Wonderful Wizard of Oz as a ‘Parable on Populism,’” Journal of the Georgia Association of Historians, vol. 15 (1994), pp. 49-63
• [2] Sheldon Cashdan, The Witch Must Die: How Fairy Tales Shape Our Lives (New York: Basic Books, 1999) see chapter 11
• [3] Jennifer Howard, “From ‘Once Upon a Time’ to ‘Happily Ever After:’ Fairy-tale scholars explore the nuanced history of the genre,” The Chronicle Review published by The Chronicle of Higher Education, Section B, May 22, 2009, pp.B6ff

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

Michael Streich - Former Adjunct Instructor, History & Global Studies

 

The Fall of Singapore February 15, 1942

Poor Planning and Indecisive Leadership Led to Japanese Victory

• Mar 6, 2009
• Michael Streich

Winston Churchill's Asian "fortress" was captured by General Yamashita as a result of inadequate defensive measures, inter-service rivalries, and vacillation.

Singapore, at the southern tip of Malaya, was founded in 1824 by Sir Stamford Raffles. The island city would serve as Great Britain’s most important Pacific Imperial outpost from which ships carried rubber and tin to other destinations of the world-wide empire. It was considered an impregnable fortress, the Asian “Rock of Gibraltar.” According to Noel Barber, it was a “polyglot city built on swamp…cocooned in the myth of utter security.” That myth was shattered in February 1942 when Japanese forces, having easily overwhelmed Malaya, captured Singapore.

The Defense of Singapore

As early as 1919 British Admiral John Jellicoe visited Singapore and perceived a possible threat from Japan, a nation in the process of militarizing and threatening the China “Open Door” policy. At the outbreak of the Pacific War on December 7, 1941, Singapore’s defenses, however, were still woefully inadequate. Several of the newly constructed air bases were impossible to defend and the existing aircraft were obsolete.

Inter-service cooperation between the RAF, the navy, and the army was poor, further exacerbating the inability of sound defensive planning. Although heavy guns pointed toward the sea, from which it was believed a Japanese attack would come, the northern part of the island, facing the Johore Straits, was left without defensive deterrents. Until the last days of Singapore’s freedom, even as Japanese units could be seen preparing their assault, General Percival, the commander, refused the pleas of officers to fortify the area, citing the possibility of declining morale.

On orders from Winston Churchill, the Repulse and the Prince of Whales were dispatched to Singapore as a show of force, significantly, without a carrier escort. These capital ships had been sent against the recommendations of the Admiralty. Commanded by Admiral Sir Tom Phillips, both ships would be sunk shortly after their arrival by Japanese aircraft as they patrolled north of Singapore. Command of the sea was lost.

Before the war, Singapore maintained a population of half a million inhabitants. That number soared to over a million as Japanese forces eventually moved down the peninsula. 88,000 troops, later reinforced by the British 18th Division, diverted from their initial destination of Burma, defended Singapore.

The Battle for Singapore

In early December 1941, Japanese troops under the command of General Yamashita landed at Kota Bahru, four hundred miles north of Singapore. Although opposition was fierce, Japanese forces enveloped defending forces more than once and began to chip away at the disorganized British strategy. The Japanese covered the 650 miles from Siam, their starting point, to Singapore in seventy days, thirty less than planned.

Relentless day-time bombing of the city filled hospitals. Although initial targets were the docks and military installations such as the air bases, civilian targets included Chinatown and later, as the end approached, the colonial government centers. Four steamers filled with women and children left the city under the cover of night, each reaching their destinations safely.

By the time Yamashita’s forces were ready to cross the Jahore Straits, General Percival finally gave the order to Brigadier Simson to fortify the northeast shore. The Japanese invasion, however, came from the northwest shore. Simson, an engineering officer who had repeatedly called for fortifying the entire shore line, attempted to move the fortifications, but it was too late.

Singapore fell on Sunday, February 15th at 6:10 PM, when General Percival signed Yamashita’s ultimatum of unconditional surrender. Poor and inadequate planning, leadership vacillation, and an inability by all leaders to work together had contributed to the fall. Additionally, Winston Churchill and Parliamentary leaders failed to grasp the true situation in Singapore in December 1941.

Would sending more, up-to-date, aircraft, as advocated in Parliament by Sir Archibald Southby, have helped? Should the north shore have been fortified sooner, creating an impregnable citadel? General Percival later admitted that not fortifying Singapore earlier had been a mistake.

Sources:

Louis Allen, Singapore 1941-1942: The Politics and Strategy of the Second World War (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1977).

Noel Barber, A Sinister Twilight: The Fall of Singapore 1942 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968).

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

Michael Streich -

Retired History Adjunct Instructor

 

Franklin Roosevelt and the Yalta Conference

Charting a Post War Europe Based on Free and Open Elections

• Aug 11, 2009
• Michael Streich

Although the Yalta Conference addressed a variety of issues including Soviet participation against Japan, the post-war status of Poland was at the top of the agenda.

The Yalta Conference of February 4, 1945 was the last meeting of the “Big Three,” Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Josef Stalin. Roosevelt died shortly after the conference, leaving a legacy of doubt and suspicion regarding agreements made at the conference. Historian Robert Sherwood aptly wrote that, “Yalta has been blamed for many of the ills with which the world was afflicted in the years following the total defeat of Nazi Germany and Japan.” Although many Americans believed that FDR had “sold out” Eastern Europe to Stalin, there is no evidence that this was the president’s intention.

The Yalta Conference and the Polish Question

World War II began with the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany, followed by Soviet invasion and occupation September 17, 1939. Both nations incorporated Poland as per the secret protocols of the August 1939 Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty. The legitimate Polish government fled to London. It was this exiled government that was recognized by the United States and Great Britain.

As the war drew to a close, however, German armies were retreating west. By the summer of 1944, the Red Army was ready to cross the Vistula River to liberate Warsaw. Polish resistance fighters – the Home Army, began a prolonged uprising against the German occupiers in the Warsaw Rising that would cost a quarter million lives. Although prodded into rising by the Soviets, the Red Army refused to cross the river, despite appeals from Roosevelt and Churchill.

Satisfied that the German defenders had eliminated any Poles that might offer similar resistance to the Soviets, the Red Army marched into a destroyed city five months later and installed the pro-communist Lublin government. At Yalta, Roosevelt was determined that the exiled Polish government should be included and that free elections must be held.

Franklin Roosevelt’s Declaration at the 1945 Yalta Conference

Roosevelt’s “Declaration on Liberated Europe” proposed free elections in all Eastern European countries, particularly Poland, which was to include all factions: a "Provisional Government of National Unity.” Surprisingly, Stalin agreed to these proposals. At the same time, however, Soviet agents were busy setting up pro-communist governments in Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary.

Roosevelt was exuberant and felt that the conference had been a success. Commenting on the final agreements regarding Poland, his Chief of Staff, Admiral William Leahy, stated, “This is so elastic that the Russians can stretch it from Yalta to Washington without ever technically breaking it.” Roosevelt, however, believed it was the best the West could get out of Stalin.

Other Yalta Conference Agreements Between FDR and Soviet Russia

Stalin promised Roosevelt to enter the war against Japan 2-3 weeks after the final defeat of Nazi Germany. It was agreed that Russia would receive land concessions in Asia such as the Kurile Islands and southern Sakhalin. Also discussed were the protocols involving the new organization of nations – the United Nations, of which veto power was the most contentious question. Additionally, Russia demanded separate seats for Ukraine and Belarus.

On the issue of Iran, Russia refused to be drawn into a discussion. The Middle East, including the status of the Dardanelles, was important to the British. In an effort to maintain the strong Anglo-American alliance, Roosevelt supported Churchill on most issues but rejected his suspicions that Stalin could not be trusted and that the Russians would not abide by the agreements coming out of Yalta, notably the promise of free elections.

Big Three Motivations at the Yalta Conference Led to the Cold War

Everyone at Yalta knew that the European war was rapidly drawing to a close. Stalin was already looking toward the post-war world. His agenda included war reparations and expansion. Churchill’s post-war goal was to maintain the Empire, particularly India. Roosevelt, however, still had to defeat Japan. This would require one million fresh soldiers in the Pacific, according to General Marshall. Each leader approached Yalta with a definite agenda and left with different short term aims.

Sources:

• Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (Penguin Books, 1997)
• Irwin F. Gellman, Secret Affairs: Franklin Roosevelt, Cordell Hull, and Sumner Wells (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995)
• Robert E. Sherwood, The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins, Volume II, January 1942-July 1945 (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1949)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

Michael Streich - Former Adjunct Instructor, History & Global Studies

 

Doolittle Raid, Coral Sea, and Midway Island

Three 1942 Military Successes Turning the Tide Against Japan

• Jan 12, 2009
• Michael Streich

Each in their own way, the Doolittle Raid, the Battle of the Coral Sea, and the Battle of Midway helped turn the tide of war against Japan six months after Pearl Harbor.

The December 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor unified Americans and ended the strong isolationist movement, but it also cast a cloud of melancholy among Americans, stunned that Imperial Japan could eviscerate not only the United States in the Pacific, but also Great Britain. President Roosevelt lost no time confronting the emergency, using executive power to organize the government into hundreds of boards and committees, giving the order to isolate potentially dangerous Japanese Americans, and giving the nod to the Manhattan Project. Yet it would be three 1942 military actions that would serve as the greatest morale boosters and provide the much needed turning point.

The Doolittle Raid

In April 1942, Lt. Colonel James Doolittle led a bombing mission against the home islands of Japan. Thought to be impervious to United States air attacks, the islands were suddenly vulnerable. Launched from the deck of the aircraft carrier Hornet, Doolittle’s B-25s bombed targets in Japan, including Tokyo, and flew on to China. More than anything, the Doolittle Raid raised American morale, although historians point out that the raid may have solidified Japan’s resolve to launch the Midway campaign.

Battle of the Coral Sea

One month after the Doolittle Raid, Japanese naval forces battled the Allies at the Coral Sea, off the coast of Queensland, Australia. The battle effectively stopped the southward advance of Japanese forces, enabling the survival of Australia which would prove crucial in future months. It was in Brisbane that General Douglas MacArthur established his headquarters and through Australia supplies would be funneled in the ensuring island-hopping campaign.

Battle of Midway

Without a doubt, Midway, occurring in early June 1942, was the turning point of the Pacific War. The elaborate Japanese plan, involving hundreds of ships, planes, and thousands of soldiers, was thwarted when US naval intelligence cracked the enemy code. Knowing that Midway was the intended target, Admiral Chester Nimitz ordered US carriers Hornet, Enterprise, and Yorktown to the region

The Japanese fleet, commanded by Admiral Yamamoto, was split into an attack fleet and an invasion fleet. A third group attacked the Alaskan Aleutian Islands as a diversion. The Japanese attack force was met by planes from the American carriers after launching its own attack on Midway Island. In the ensuring hours, American planes would destroy four enemy carriers, effectively ending Yamamoto’s plan and forcing the Japanese fleet to retire.

Effect of the Turning Point

Japan would never again have command of the Pacific. After Midway, Japanese forces were thrust into a defensive posture, fighting a war that would last three more long and bloody years. But the three military successes of early to mid 1942 helped to pave the way toward that ultimate victory and buy precious time for the Allies.

After Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto was to have said, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” American victory, particularly at Midway, allowed the US to recover rapidly from Pearl Harbor, galvanize the nation’s industrial might, and prevail in both Europe and the Pacific theater.

Sources:

Paul S. Dull, A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy (1941-1945) (Annapolis: United States Naval Institute, 1978)

John Toland, The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-1945 (New York: Random House, 1970)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

Michael Streich - Former Adjunct Instructor, History & Global Studies