World War II Reparations Compared

German and Japanese Responses to War Crimes and Atrocities

Nov 20, 2009 Michael Streich

Berlin Holocaust Memorial - Mike Streich

Germany continues a campaign of compensation and education to accept guilt for WW II atrocities while Japan follows a long policy of official denial of wrongdoing.

World War II ended in 1945. Nazi Germany surrendered first on May 8th. Imperial Japan on August 15th. Although the Allies were very familiar with specific acts of atrocity, later to be defined as war crimes, the extent of those crimes only became clear as war trials were held, documents accessed, and witnessed questioned.

In the wake of those discoveries, Germany began the long process of reparations, healing, and putting into place laws to ensure such atrocities would never again happen. The recent deportation of 89-year old John Demjanjuk to Germany to stand trial for war crimes is indicative of Germany’s continued resolve to punish the guilty. In contrast, Japan has never taken such steps and has even attempted to erase their atrocities from their history books.

The Results of German “De-Nazification”

The most vivid reminder of the Nazi period is the concentration camps, open to public visitation. They remind Germans of a very real past and act as a deterrent to any possible totalitarian notions. German students are required to visit a camp as part of their educational experience. Additionally, Germany has criminalized “Holocaust denying.” According to German government information sources, total financial compensation to the victims of the Nazi regime surpasses fifty million Euro (100 DM before the Euro conversion).

With help from the German government, historic synagogues have been restored and Holocaust memorials erected such as the recently opened Berlin memorial designed by Peter Eisenman. Any form of Anti-Semitism is rejected and public displays of Nazi symbols like the swastika are legally banned. Guilt from that terrible period has even resulted in new religious orders formed as atonement for the Holocaust, like the Evangelical Sisters of Mary headquartered in Darmstadt.

Japanese Reaction to World War II

In stark contrast, Japan continues to deny the atrocities of the past such as the notorious “rape of Nanking” or the treatment of Koreans. In 2004 Miyako Masuda, a 23-year veteran teacher, dared to teach the truth about Japan’s role in Korea in her history class; she was removed from teaching. Her actions came in response to a Tokyo politician’s public statement that “Japan never invaded Korea.”

During the Japanese occupation of Korea, however, thousands of Korean women were used as “sex slaves” by Japanese soldiers, a fact documented in many sources and poignantly discussed by Chinese-American historian Iris Chang whose study of Japanese atrocities in China are the definitive source on the subject. These Korean victims were known as “comfort women.”

When US President Ronald Reagan visited the Bitburg cemetery in Germany widespread outrage ensued because the cemetery held the graves of former SS soldiers. Yet Japanese politicians habitually visit the Shinto Yasukini shrine in which the ashes of known World War II war criminals are kept. These actions have prompted regular diplomatic protests from China and South Korea.

Human Experimentation and POW Slave Labor

The grotesque experiments of Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele are well documented. Yet the experiments by Japan, often using POW’s or indigenous populations, have been denied by the Japanese government. These included bio-chemical experiments on human groups and were extensively conducted in occupied Northern China. To date, no one has ever been tried as a war criminal for any of these activities.

POW’s were used as slave laborers by Japan. Yet survivors have been unable to bring cases to court against such giants as Sony. Other suits have been attempted as class action remedies such as the 1995 suit brought by Miami-based Center for Internee Rights. Japan’s defense continues to be denial.

The United States was instrumental in rebuilding both Germany and Japan after World War II. De-Nazification worked and German compensation and reparations attempted to offer some measure of atonement. This same attitude must be adopted by Japan as well.

Sources:

• Douglas Botting, From the Ruins of the Reich: Germany 1945-1949 (Crown Publishers, Inc. 1985)
• Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II (Basic Books, 1997)
• “Japan orders history books to change passages on forced World War II suicides,” Boston Herald.com, March 30, 2007
• Robert Marquand, “Tokyo teacher embattled over war history,” Christian Science Monitor, November 22, 2005

© 2009 Michael Streich

 

1950s and 1960s Main Streets Fuel Prosperity

Consumerism in Post War America Focused on Downtown Shopping

Nov 22, 2009 Michael Streich

As individual wages rose in the 1950s and products expanded, affordable consumer goods from food to clothing helped fuel a period of economic prosperity and well being.

   

In 1965 Petula Clark’s hit song “Downtown” reminded listeners to “listen to the music of the traffic in the city, linger on the sidewalk where the neon signs are pretty.” In the 1950s and 60s Main Street in most American cities represented the life and prosperity of a consumer driven society. Here shoppers bought everything from Smith-Corona typewriters made in the USA to a pair of Hagar slacks selling for $6.95. New products, often advertised as “fully automatic,” characterized a period of conformity while giving workers the opportunity to purchase consumer goods as their wages rose.

Post Depression Economic Expansion

After over a decade of national depression and four years of a world war that demanded sacrifices, the Cold War peace was a breath of fresh air for most Americans. The average national income in 1950 was $3,216 and the cost of a new house in suburbs approximately $12,400. Cold War families paid 16 cents for a gallon of gas and 3 cents to mail a letter.

The American housewife experienced dramatic changes in the kitchen. Hotpoint’s new range, introduced in the 1950s, was advertised as “super automatic” and could bake, broil, grill, barbeque (like modern rotisserie appliances), and had the ability to fry fries in a special frying unit. Changes in processed food also meant less time in the kitchen.

The Swanson “TV dinners” began a food revolution while the producers of evaporated milk proclaimed their product as a “magical marvel.” In 1957 a can of Campbell’s tomato soup cost 10 cents and for those families seeking to dine out, a chicken dinner in Topeka in 1951 was only $1.50 and included a choice of sides and dessert at Hoofer’s Dinner-House. Products were made in America, fueling an industrial and manufacturing economy.

Main Street in Every Downtown

For most urban Americans, the city “downtown” was a microcosm of the national consumer spirit. Specialty shops linked the “five-and-dime” stores like Kresge and McCrory’s along every main thoroughfare. Because many neighborhoods reflected ethnic immigrant patterns, an Italian bakery might be across the street from a Polish butcher.

Downtowns in the sprawling Northeastern communities within driving distance of New York or Philadelphia were connected by bus routes and rail transportation. In New Jersey, the Erie-Lakawanna line took passengers from Newark to Main Streets in Passaic and Patterson while buses ferried shoppers to the larger downtown avenues such as Bergenline Avenue in West New York on the Jersey side of the Hudson River.

Many downtowns across the nation featured venerable old department stories like Sterns in Newark, NJ or Belks in Charlotte, NC. Every downtown hosted a Sears store. It was the departure of these important establishments in favor of suburban malls that began the decline of Main Street in many communities. Along with malls, free-standing all-purpose stories like W.T. Grant lured shoppers away from downtowns.

Increased Mobility Added to the Demise of Downtown Shopping

By the late 1960s more Americans than ever were driving. A gallon of gas was still only 25 cents in 1959 and Detroit was producing attractive and affordable new models every year. This was also the period when America went from an urban nation a suburban one. Families traveled more and the suburban shopping mall was a new experience. In 1967, a one-night stay at a Howard Johnson’s motor lodge was only $15.50 plus tax.

As the five-and-dime stores consolidated in the 1980s or filed for bankruptcy, many downtown merchants found the decreasing interest in Main Street shopping unsustainable to their businesses. Today, communities have spent millions of dollars to “revitalize” dead downtowns but have generally been unsuccessful in bringing back meaningful merchant business. The Main Streets that helped fuel fifties and sixties prosperity remain a nostalgic memory of a bygone era.

Sources:

• Reminisce magazine and on-line site.
• Jeff Little, “A Bargain at Any Price.”
• Laura Shapiro, Something from the Oven: Reinventing Dinner in 1950s America (Viking, 2004)
• “1950s & 1960s Commercials,” The Video Beat, New Paltz, NY (VHS)
• 
  
• *The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Reprinting of any or all of this article in any format must be grated in writing by Michael Streich.

 

The Westward Movement's Effect on Indians

The American Frontier Mentality Led to the Demise of Native Cultures

Nov 23, 2009 Michael Streich

The history of America is a history of westward migration from the Colonial Era to Manifest Destiny resulting in the populating of the Great Plains after the Civil War.

The “Westward Movement” in American history may have begun during the early colonial period as the lure of land, game, and resources tempted adventurous settlers to leave the east behind. By the mid-19th century Horace Greeley supposedly said, “Go West young man and grow up with the country.” Ralph Waldo Emerson had advised readers to “Hitch your wagon to a star.” The Frontier fulfilled both challenges and in the 1890s Frederick Jackson Turner evaluated everything that was good in the American character and national mentality as relating to the frontier. The Westward Movement brought significant changes to the vast continent but in many cases these changes spelled doom for the indigenous inhabitants.

The Beginning of Western Settlement in the 19th Century

Even before the 1849 Gold Rush brought tens of thousands to California, Americans had migrated west in large numbers. Texas independence was attributed, in part, to eastern farmers enticed by cheap and fertile land. The Mormons, led by Brigham Young, trekked across the Plains by the thousands to establish their own community in Utah, out of the reach of discrimination and persecution. The Westward Movement was not slowed by the Civil War even as a Republican dominated Congress finally passed a Homestead Act in 1862.

Role of the Railroad in Westward Settlement

In 1869 the two branches of the new built Transcontinental Railroad met at Promontory, Utah, signaling the end of a stupendous undertaking linking the two American coasts. The railroad also took local Native Americans a step closer to the reservation system and the perpetual loss of tribal land. Railroad hubs funneled goods via trunk lines to growing cities like Chicago with beef cattle driven across the Plains from Texas. At the same time, railroad agents actively recruited farmers to settle on company-owned lands. Their farming would produce railroad profits through freighting fees.

Effect on Native Populations

Plains Indians were driven from traditional lands by a variety of factors but the most important one was the sheer number of pioneers and adventurers crossing the continent. 223,000 Plains Indians, including the Five Friendly tribes in Oklahoma, lived in this region. In the Northern Plains, some 30,000 Sioux vigorously fought for their lands and it was these Indians that obliterated General Custer’s command at the Little Big Horn in 1876.

Native Americans hunted buffalo, using every portion of the animal to live. White men determined to subdue native cultures began a concerted effort to rid the Plains of buffalo, driving the species into near extinction. While such actions may have been premeditated, in other cases they involved adventurers that hunted the animals purely for sporting pleasure. By 1893, fewer than 200 buffalo existed in the West.

Solving the Indian Problem

The independence of native cultures was interrupted by cattle drives, farmer’s fences, an ever expanding railroad system, and the elimination of a chief source of food. Indians as a group were viewed as vile and insolent. In an era when white society applied Charles Darwin’s principles to social models, the Indians were inferior and unfit. During his command of American forces in the Trans-Missouri West, General William T. Sherman observed that the only solution would be extermination.

By 1887 Congress passed the Dawes Severalty Act, depriving Indians of traditional tribal lands and settling them on farm allotments. The legislation, though well intentioned, failed. As more territories entered the community of states, Native Americans became more marginalized. The culmination of the Westward Movement’s effect on native cultures came in 1890 at Wounded Knee in South Dakota with the wanton massacre of Teton Sioux.

Sources:

• Dee Brown, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West (Holt, 2001)
• Federick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)
• Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America: A People’s History of the Post Reconstruction Era (Penguin Books, 1990)
• Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansion in American History (Gloucester, MA, Peter Smith, 1958)

*The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Reprinting all or part in any form must be grated by Michael Streich in writing.

 

Ulysses Grant and the 1872 Election

Liberal Republicans Form a Party to Combat Grantism

Dec 15, 2009 Michael Streich

Liberal Republicans and Democrats reacted in 1872 to the Credit Mobilier scandal, abuse of the Spoils System, on-going Radical Reconstruction, and federal corruption.

When a group of disaffected Republicans calling themselves Liberal Republicans met in Cincinnati, Ohio in May 1872, they had the perfect opportunity to defeat Ulysses S. Grant in the November election. Led by Missouri Senator Carl Schurz, the Liberal Republicans reacted to the growing scandals and widespread corruption associated within the Grant administration. Unfortunately, however, the Liberal Republicans emerged from the convention nominating the one man who had the least chance of defeating Grant, Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune.

Ulysses Grant and the Stalwart Republicans

Ulysses Grant, associated with Union victory over the South in the last years of the Civil War, had been an ideal presidential choice in 1868 for the Republican Party. Former President Andrew Johnson had been deemed a Southern sympathizer and endured impeachment although the Senate trial did not result in conviction. Grant, who had presidential ambitions before 1868, was the ideal candidate.

Grant, however, was no politician and though personally honest, found himself under the control of the Republican “stalwarts” in Congress. An 1872 political cartoon created by Matt Morgan, for example, features an incompetent Congress with Senator Roscoe Conkling, leader of the Stalwarts, pouring liquor into the glass of President Grant who is obviously already inebriated. A caption on the pillared wall declares, “The times demand an uprising of honest citizens to sweep from power the men who prostitute the name of our sacred party to selfish interests.”

Corruption and Nepotism in the First Grant Administration

Corruption during the first Grant administration reached as high as the office of Vice President Schuyler Colfax. Along with other Congressmen, Colfax was implicated in the Credit Mobilier scandal involving the diverting of railroad funds designated for the Union Pacific Railroad to personal use.

President Grant used nepotism and patronage to fill government positions with family members and friends. This flagrant use of the “spoils system” led to demands in reforming the civil service, an issue so important that the Liberal Republicans included it in their party platform. Grant’s Cabinet featured men who were incompetent and prone to corruption and bribery.

The Liberal Republicans and Horace Greeley

The Liberal Republican program addressed government corruption – Grantism, but focused on other needed reforms as well. These included tariff schedules enacted during the Civil War and recently strengthened by the Radical Republican-led Congress. The liberals wanted to end Radical Reconstruction and bring honesty back to government. Their party platform paralleled the views of Democrats, who also nominated Greeley at their convention.

Other potential candidates included Charles Francis Adams, scion of the Adams family that had already produced two presidents, John and John Quincy Adams. Charles Francis Adams, who had served ably during the war as the U.S. Ambassador to England, was considered too associated with New England aristocracy. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase did not have national appeal and Carl Schurz was not born in the U.S.

Horace Greeley had been an outspoken critic of Grantism but over the years had made many enemies through his newspaper publishing. His perceived centrist position on the South cost him the votes of blacks and war veterans. Rather than allowing surrogates to campaign on his behalf, Greeley took to the people, frequently alienating voters by his speeches.

Outcome of the Election of 1872

Ulysses Grant decisively defeated Greeley and the Liberal Republicans, carrying all but six states. Utterly exhausted and grieving over the death of his wife, Greeley died shortly after the election in a sanitarium. Grantism would continue into the next election, the Tilden-Hayes campaign that represented the nadir of Stalwart Republican politics.

Sources:

• Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns from George Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004)
• Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877 (HarperCollins, 1988)
• Page Smith, Trial By Fire: A People’s History of the Civil War and Reconstruction (McGraw-Hill,1982)
• William Bruce Wheeler and Susan D. Becker, Discovering the American Past: A Look at the Evidence, 5th Edition, Volume One (Houghton Mifflin, 2002)
• 
  

*The copyright of this article belongs to Michael Streich. Reprinting of this article must be granted in writing by the author.

 Abramoff Scandal Typical of the District of Corruption

Americans Have Hard Time Trusting Government

Michael Streich (First published as book review December 2,2011)

One of the greatest enigmas of twenty-first century American politics and government is that most citizens, according to all polls, have a dismal view of Congress and “insider” political machinations, yet know so little about the political process or the Constitution. The result is usually corruption and abuse of power, a tale recounted by the most recent arch-villain Jack Abramoff in his book Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America’s Most Notorious Lobbyist (Washington, D.C.: WND Books, 2011. ISBN 978-1-936488-44-5).

 

Jack Abramoff can easily be dismissed as a scoundrel, the don of the K Street crowd that make a living lobbying members of Congress on behalf of clients willing to pay enormous fees to influence legislation for better or worse. But the greater scoundrels are the men and women accepting the largesse, the elected members of Congress and their staffers. In his concluding chapter, Abramoff argues for term limits but forgets that while representatives and Senators come and go, staffers do not.

 

The Role of Congressional Staffers

 

Although Abramoff discusses his relationships with powerful Congressional leaders like Tom DeLay and Bob Ney, it was the staffers that often unwittingly abetted the illegal scheme. Abramoff writes that, “…the best hires from Capitol Hill were the staff, not the members.” Dangling lucrative employment in front of idealistic and generally young men and women, he concludes, “I would own him and, consequently, that entire office.” Abramoff’s magic formula was very simple: “quid pro quo.”

 

Jack Abramoff writes that he loved to help people. Charitable giving, for example, “became something of an addiction.” While in prison, he secured a Bible for another inmate. But the one sin that screams from the pages of Capitol Punishment involves what he took away: sincere idealism based on trust. Rationalizing this was easy. Abramoff states that, “Our idea of a successful day was obliterating our client’s enemies.”

 

The Sins of Omission

 

The book may be more significant for what it doesn’t reveal. Abramoff shares the names of Senators that hypocritically took tens of thousands of dollars and then joined the sanctimonious pack looking for a scapegoat to appease an angry and often exaggerating media. His recollections, however, are very general with the impression that many more members of Congress could have been named.

 

Abramoff gives a spirited defense of lobbyists, effectively demonstrating that they serve a legitimate bread and butter purpose that goes beyond monolithic corporate entities and impacts the mom and pop businesses strangled by often senseless and irrational regulations. He reminds astute readers that congressional bills are infrequently read by members of Congress that rely on staffers to craft and recommend legislation.

 

Heroes and Villains

 

His portrayal of Newt Gingrich is not favorable and Ralph Reed emerges as a double-dealing insider whose personal ambitions may have dwarfed an earlier evangelical zealousness. Abramoff cites Ronald Reagan as his “hero,” referring to “establishment” Republicans as “bullies.” His own humility and redemption began with a prison sentence but ended with a call to reform. It’s easy to toss aside his mea culpa until one realizes that Abramoff characterized an entire system that includes the political apathy of millions or ordinary Americans.

 

Society didn’t make Abramoff into a scoundrel, but a culture cast adrift by its own loss of national direction and integrity did. Before delving into Abramoff’s world of lobbyists and greedy politicians, readers should peruse his final chapter, “Path to Reform.” If Abramoff is sincere, it is easier to reconcile his chronicle of power with his new state of grace. Capitol Punishment is Jack Abramoff’s side of the story. It may be old news, but it underlines why Americans are fed up with insider politics.

*The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Reprints approved only with written permission from the author.

 

The Final Solution and German Homosexuals

• Nov 29, 2011
• Michael Streich

Homosexuality was considered abnormal and dangerous by the Nazi regime, resulting in the brutalization and death of thousands of gay men.

In October 1939 the British government released a White Paper on German concentration camps, detailing torture and brutality suffered by Jews and political prisoners. Hardly mentioned, however, was the regime’s attack on homosexuals. What began as an attack on those accused of crimes against nature and, as Heinrich Himmler said in 1937, an “abnormal existence,” ended with extermination. Historian Richard Plant concluded Himmler “would come to believe that the Final Solution was as inevitable for gays as for Jews…”

Homosexuality in Germany

Homosexuality was always criminalized in Germany. During the Weimar Republic following the end of the First World War, however, the homosexual community flourished and was identified with larger cities like Berlin and Hamburg. The 1939 White Paper, for example, suggested that “an explanation of this outbreak of sadistic cruelty may be that sexual perversion, particularly homosexuality, is very prevalent in Germany.” There was little sympathy for homosexuals, even after the war ended. Homosexuality was not decriminalized in Germany until 1994.

The Nazi regime stressed social order and national strength embodied within the family structure. Germany’s estimated two million homosexuals threatened that view. Amendments to Paragraph 175, the law proscribing jail sentences for homosexual behavior, expanded punishments to ten years of prison time, although many homosexuals were ultimately sent to concentration camps. Historian Klaus Fischer estimates the number to have been 15,000. Homosexuals were identified with a pink triangle patch on their clothing.

Promoting Behavioral Changes through Prison Conditions

Stefan Micheler, of the University of Hamburg, concludes that “The National Socialist’s regime’s professed goal was to eradicate homosexuals behavior and not the ‘homosexual’ per se, although the end result was often the same.” This conclusion is shared by other historians and sociologists studying the Nazi persecution of homosexuals.

Carola von Bulow, in an unpublished dissertation, argues that, “…the severity of measures was intended to bring about a change in behavior.” Von Bulow, in her study, differentiates between homosexuals sent to prisons and those in concentration camps where punishments were brutal. Frank Hornig’s compelling account of Rudolf Brazda, for example, demonstrates the Nazi use of “punishment battalions” that resulted in “extermination through labor.” (Spiegel, July 6, 2011) Brazda survived Buchenwald. It should also be noted that Nazi punishments were harsher against German homosexuals.

Many homosexuals were denounced by friends and neighbors, particularly after the Roehm affair in 1934 and several celebrated criminal cases that ostensibly implicated homosexuals. Anyone suspected of “asocial” behavior, including lesbians, was subject to arrest. Although few lesbians suffered persecutions as did gay men, examples exist. Mary Punjer, for example, was gassed at Ravensbruck Concentration Camp in May 1942. Her arrest records include notations referring to lesbian behavior.

The Military as a Refuge

Some of Germany’s homosexuals found escape in the military. Plant suggests that, “Because Himmler’s Gestapo agents had no jurisdiction over the military, it offered a relatively safe refuge for most homosexuals of military age.” Europa Europa, for example, details the true life story of Solomon Perel who befriended a homosexual soldier in his unit on the Eastern front.

Homosexuals in the military, however, still found it a matter of survival to hide their sexual identities. A junior officer, for example, relates his experiences as a member of a post-war POW “roll commando:”

“One day we got the information that we had some homosexuals in camp and they were active. One lived in a little shed…the other lived in a tent. We all met one night [25 men in the roll commando group] near midnight at that tent. Very silently, we pulled out the stakes at the side, lifted up the tent and pulled the man outside. His sleeping bag was tied over his head and then he got a good beating. We used sticks and belts and kicked the man until there was no sound. He and his partner were put in protective custody by the British.”

Fear and Indifference

German homophobia was fueled by propaganda equating homosexuality with decadence and weakness. Political parties of both the left and the right joined together in denouncing homosexuality. The freedoms experienced by the German gay community in the 1920’s were short-lived. Once persecutions began, many homosexuals could not fathom the extent of Nazi barbarism and the indifference of friends, neighbors, and even family members. A climate of fear fed the culture of denunciations. Like many Jews, homosexuals believed the madness would pass.

The end of Hitlerism did not bring relief; homosexuality was still criminalized and carried a stigma. A monument dedicated to homosexual victims of the Third Reich was not completed until May 2008.

Sources

• Raymond Daniell, “Nazi Tortures Detailed by Britain; Concentration Camp Horrors Told,” New York Times, October 31, 1939
• Klaus P. Fischer, Nazi Germany: A New History (Continuum, 1995)
• Frank Hornig, “At 98, Gay Concentration Camp Survivor Shares Story,” Spiegel July 6, 2011
• Stefan Micheler, “Homophobic Propaganda and the Denunciation of Same-Sex Desiring Men under National Socialism,” Journal of the History of Sexuality, Volume 11, Number 1 and 2, January/April 2002
• Richard Plant, The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals (Henry Holt and Company, 1986)
• Unpublished memoirs of “G.S.,” a junior officer in the German military, p. 48

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

Michael Streich - Former Adjunct Instructor, History & Global Studies

 Can the President Declare War on his Own?

Michael Streich

First published in Suite101

The power to declare war is expressly reserved to the United States Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Yet the last time Congress actually issued a formal declaration of war was on December 8, 1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Day of Infamy” speech before a joint session. That war declaration was nearly unanimous. Only Republican Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana, a pacifist, dissented. Although the United States has been involved in numerous global conflicts since the Second World War, there has never been an official war declaration by the Congress for any of those conflicts.

 

Declaring War Prior to World War II

 

Every American war fought by the United States before the Cold War came as a result of a formal Congressional vote in response to a presidential war message. The only exception might be the so-called Quasi-War fought as a naval conflict between France and the U.S. during the presidency of John Adams.

 

War resolutions were often hotly debated, such as the response to President Polk’s war message that began the Mexican-American War or Woodrow Wilson’s war message in 1917. When Congress voted on Wilson’s war request, Jeannette Rankin – the first woman in Congress, voted against war. She lost reelection, in part, because of this vote, but in 1940 returned to Congress.

 

American Wars and Conflicts after World War II

 

Congress never voted to go to war in 1950 when North Korea crossed the 38^th parallel, beginning the Korean War. The conflict in Korea was a United Nations operation, allowing President Truman to circumvent the Congress and set a Cold War precedent. Subsequent conflicts under other presidents would follow this example. Historians point out that the global nature of U.S. security interests forced a change in how presidents viewed their roles as commander-in-chief.

 

In August 1964, for example, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving President Lyndon B Johnson a “blank check” to escalate American military actions in Vietnam. Only Senators Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening dissented. Vietnam was, however, the product of the Cold War, evolving into a major military conflict after many years of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia.

 

When President Ronald Reagan ordered marines to invade Grenada in 1983, Congress was not informed until after military actions had secured the Caribbean nation. Significantly, the operation was named “Urgent Fury,” suggesting immediate action. During the Cold War era and even into the contemporary Unipolar world in which the U.S. is the sole “superpower,” the often lengthy process of a war declaration can compromise global security interests.

 

The Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not Declared Wars

 

The horrific events associated with 9/11 are often compared to Pearl Harbor. But President George W Bush’s efforts to punish the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and later the invasion of Iraq were initiated by the White House and not Congress. Congress supported the decisions through resolutions and funding measures, but there was no official declaration of war.

 

Returning to Constitutional Principles Might Prevent Unnecessary Conflicts

 

When the Founding Fathers gave Congress the sole and express power to declare war, they added to the checks and balances or separation of powers in the Constitution. Committing to war is costly, both in lives and money. The current war in Afghanistan may cost, according to analysts, three trillion dollars. Congressional debate slows emotional responses if normal rules of parliamentary procedure are employed.

 

The 21^st Century Congress should have the sole power of declaring war, especially in terms of conflicts that, like the Middle East wars, will result in huge expenditures and the deaths of many American soldiers. It is not enough to claim immunity on the basis of NATO commitments or United Nations mandates. This was an early 20^th Century argument against the proposal to join the League of Nations.

 

Returning the War Power to the Congress

 

The Founding Fathers attempted to create a government free from tyranny. The Constitution is empowered by the people of the Republic, through their elected Congressional delegates. Congressional reaction to conflicts instigated by the executive branch should not be after-the-fact, even though the 1973 War Powers Resolution allows the president to deploy U.S. troops without the prior approval of Congress.

 

References:

 

Robert David Johnson, Congress and the Cold War (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Charles A. Stevenson, Congress at War: The Politics of Conflict Since 1789 (Potomac Books, 2007)

U.S. Constitution

*The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Reprints in any form must be granted by the author in writing.

 

The Year Before America Entered the Great War

• Jul 7, 2011
• Michael Streich

The War Between Labor & Capital Continued - Library of Congress: Goldstein Col

1916 witnessed the proliferation of jazz, silent movies, and better automobiles, but the war between labor and business continued, as did segregation.

1916 was an election year, producing a 62 percent turnout, one of the highest in history. The election saw Woodrow Wilson reelected, defeating Charles Evans Hughes, although in several state returns Wilson’s margin of victory was less than four percent. The election demonstrated that World War I, which had been raging since August 1914, was on many minds. It would be the last year of innocence before the war drums beat once again and the new century forced a redefinition of the U.S. presence in the world. Despite this, daily life continued unaltered, in some cases paving the way toward a different society. For many groups, however, full equality was a long journey into the future.

A Changing United States

Both Jack London and Henry James died in 1916 but a new breed of writers was making their way into the American psyche. Eugene O’Neill, acclaimed as one of the nation’s greatest dramatists, wrote “Bound East for Cardiff” while Theodore Dreiser, author of the ground-breaking novel Sister Carrie, contended with censors over newly written material. Despite the popularization of Jazz, Victorian morality still reigned, yet this did not stop Margaret Sanger from opening the first birth control clinic. It was the year bandleader Harry James and Dinah Shore were born.

The automobile was changing the travel habits of Americans and in 1916 the Thomas B. Jeffery Company in Kenosha, Wisconsin offered consumers an enclosed sedan good for “year-round motoring” at a cost of $1165.00 It was also the year Norman Rockwell sold his first two Post magazine covers, at the age of only twenty-two. Neither cover featured a war image. In Hollywood, D. W. Griffith finished Intolerance, an epic silent film with strong religious and ethical overtones.

The Battle Between Labor and Business Continued Despite Progressive Efforts

American workers were still battling for shorter hours and higher wages, even as the Adamson 8-Hour Act addressed the concerns of railroad workers. Despite the changes in social perceptions as seen in the popular literature and in the arts, domestic problems included “Pancho” Villa’s incursion into southern U.S. territory and the blowing up of a New Jersey munitions plant by German agents, an action that damaged the Statue of Liberty. and helped to solidify public opinion against Imperial Germany.

The progressive spirit, however, was still pervasive, proven, in part, by President Wilson’s nomination of Louis Brandeis to the U.S. Supreme Court. Brandeis, famously known for his unorthodox evidence in Muller v Oregon (1908), was the first Jew appointed to the high court, serving well into the FDR administration.

America’s Domestic Problems in 1916

But the calamities of Europe overshadowed any notion of carefree existence and change. While Paris was bombed by the first German Zeppelin raid, a strike by steel workers in Pittsburgh highlighted on-going labor disputes. Robert Minor’s drawing Pittsburgh, published in The Masses (1916), depicted a worker bent backward from the thrust of a bayonet. It was powerful and ironic that the worker was killed by a tool his own work probably manufactured.

Another pro-labor picture in the 1916 publication, Girls Wanted, coincided with the release of a public report detailing the findings in the investigation of the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire. Henry Glintenkamp’s seemingly innocent picture featured three young women huddled in conversation before the ruins of a building. The picture commented on the tragedy of the fire, child labor, and the exploitation of women in the workforce. 1916, however, witnessed the first woman elected to the U.S. Congress: Jeanette Rankin, Republican from Montana.

In the South, segregation was still the rule, but discrimination existed in the North as well. An October 7, 1916 item in the Cleveland Advocate refers to two “ill-kept Colored men” denied entrance to the Stillman Theater. “We do not call this discrimination,” the writer comments, “but rather an effort to exclude from the theater patrons whose deportment…made them undesirables.” The writer used the New Testament analogy of the parable about the man who wasn’t wearing a wedding garment when invited to the feast.

The Promise and Hope of Peace on Earth and Goodwill toward Men

As 1916 drew to a close, the chimes of New York’s Old Trinity Church began at ten minutes to midnight. Thousands gathered in the hope that the New Year would bring peace in Europe. Elsewhere, Secretary of War Baker expressed “profound gratitude” that the United States had, “preserved both its peacefulness and its honor.” (New York Times, December 31, 1916) Peace would also affect the U.S. economy: the 1916 credit balance with belligerent countries was $3,097,000,000.

In retrospect, 1916 was indeed a year of final innocence, despite those groups struggling to achieve their part of American democracy. The war came in 1917, sending American boys to the bloody trenches of Europe. While isolationism prevailed after the war, the U.S. would forever be entangled in alliances and focused on global actions impacting American security and prosperity. 1916 was the last year Americans could look within, without the fear of global threats.

Sources:

• Meirion & Susie Harries, The Last Days of Innocence: America At War, 1917-1918 (Random House, 1997)
• Jeff Nilsson, “Enemy Agents Strike New York – In 1916,” The Saturday Evening Post, July 7, 2010
• Library of Congress archives
• Page Smith, America Enters the War: A People’s History of the Progressive Era And World War I (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1985)

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

Michael Streich -

Retired History Adjunct Instructor