Q&A
Dr. Antony Best Q&A Transcript
1. On December 7,1941, the Pearl Harbor bombing occurred. In your opinion did the naval strategist for Japan,Yamamoto, make a wise decision to bomb Pearl Harbor? Could it have been prevented?
In the short-term the Japanese decision to bomb Pearl Harbor was effective, but it could have done more if the US aircraft carriers had been in harbor and a second strike had been launched that did more damage to the port facilities including the oil-tanks. In the long-term, it was a disaster because this one act unified the US and made it absolutely determined to have its revenge against Japan. The attack might have prevented, or at least its effects ameliorated, if the US had received intelligence beforehand. Unfortunately none came to light except a general sense that war could be imminent. This actually made the situation worse because in order to protect US aircraft from sabotage they were concentrated together rather than dispersed. This meant they were more prey to attack by Japanese bombers.
2. In comparison to the Bloodlands camps, was the Bataan Death March just as brutal? If so, in what ways?
The Bataan Death March is a different event from the Holocaust. It was not concerned with a deliberate policy of genocide as in the German case. Indeed, as a whole Japan did not pursue a policy of genocide against ethnic groups, not even in the Nanking massacre. However, the Japanese army did engage in acts of extreme brutality that went against international law. This included the events at Nanjing, the widespread abuse of POWs and the use of chemical and biological weapons (against the Chinese).
3.Since America knew about Japan's pre-planned bombing on Pearl Harbor, why didn't American make an alliance with Japan prior to the bombing to prevent the destructive consequences?
There is no solid documentary evidence that US had foreknowledge of the attack of Pearl Harbor. This is merely a conspiracy theory.
4. From 1941 to 1946 the United States imprisoned Japanese Americans, who were considered a threat to the country, although they were native born Americans. How does the alienation of the Japanese American citizens alter the definition of a liberal democracy?
In retrospect the US did decide that the internment of Japanese Americans was an infringement of their civil rights, hence the formal apology that was offered to the Japanese American community by the American government in 1988. Democratic governments often find it difficult to walk the line between oppression and freedom during times of war as the desire to ensure the security of the majority is often seen as outweighing the rights of the few. This is true even when faced with terrorism let alone all-out war.
Professor Edward Baring Q&A Transcript
1. Why do you think countries like Latin America and Great Britain accepted Jewish refugees at first and later rejected them? How does this apply to majority over minority during the year of 1939?
I don't completely understand the last part of your question, but in answering the first part, you would have to look at a number of factors. The first wave of Jewish refugees from central Europe during the 1930s involved many very well educated immigrants from Germany. Having lost positions in academia or in the administration during the various purges of the middle 1930s (for instance the Nuremberg Laws), a large number of these refugees had more extensive contacts in the countries they moved to. Later especially with the flood of refugees from Eastern Europe, especially Poland, the social and economic status of many of the immigrants starts to shift and this helps explain the changing attitude towards them. Of course also after 1939 the conditions of War also changed the circumstances in which refugees were treated.
2.Since Hitler wanted to eliminate other races/nationalities through the final solution plan, in what way did Germany benefit from this genocide?
Most historians agree that Germany did not benefit from the Genocide. Indeed the ratcheting up of the "Final Solution" occurs as the tide starts to turn against Germany militarily, and then it shifted resources away from the fronts where they could have been put to better use. Though historians disagree on the effect on Nazi policies on the German economy during this period, there is a consensus that the genocide was driven more by ideology than practical concerns.
3. Why did the majority of people in Germany go along with Hitler's Nazis policies of persecuting the "subhumans"?
This is of course a profoundly difficult question and has occupied historians for generations. One can point to strands of anti-Semitism in Germany and especially the "eliminative" variety (this is central to Daniel Goldhagen's book Hitler's Willing Executioners) but you can find those ideas in many other countries too, and it is not clear that Germany is the worst offender. Your best bet is probably to look at economic factors. Germany was very badly hit by the Great Depression, in large part because of its reliance on American loans, and the changed conditions after 1929 allowed the massive rise of the Nazi party. Many Germans tended to ignore the more virulent aspects of Nazi anti-Semitism, and paid more attention to their anti-Communist message.
The question about how ordinary Germans participated directly in the Holocaust is a very different one. A good way to examine this would be to look at Christopher Browning's excellent book Ordinary Men, which gives a startling account of the way in which ordinary Germans became seasoned killers.
4. Following the end of War World II, why do you think that many Europeans preferred communism over liberal democracies, even though communism was one of the factors that initiated the war?
It don't think it was, or is, clear that Communism was "one of the factors that initiated the war." For many, especially in Eastern Europe, , the Communists were the people who had won the war and they had sacrificed far more blood than the other allies in the liberation of Europe. Moreover in countries that had been occupied by the Nazis, such as France, the Communists had generally cleaner records than many others. As a communist it was not possible to collaborate with the Nazi invaders, which is why Communists made up a very significant part of resistance movements in those countries. This helps explain the success of Communist parties in Western Europe for decades after the collapse of Nazi Germany. In Eastern Europe you must also remember that Communism came delivered by a Soviet tank, and there was only one free election in post-war Eastern Europe where the Communists won: Czechoslovakia in 1946. The Communists were in power, and so you just had to get with the program.
1. On December 7,1941, the Pearl Harbor bombing occurred. In your opinion did the naval strategist for Japan,Yamamoto, make a wise decision to bomb Pearl Harbor? Could it have been prevented?
In the short-term the Japanese decision to bomb Pearl Harbor was effective, but it could have done more if the US aircraft carriers had been in harbor and a second strike had been launched that did more damage to the port facilities including the oil-tanks. In the long-term, it was a disaster because this one act unified the US and made it absolutely determined to have its revenge against Japan. The attack might have prevented, or at least its effects ameliorated, if the US had received intelligence beforehand. Unfortunately none came to light except a general sense that war could be imminent. This actually made the situation worse because in order to protect US aircraft from sabotage they were concentrated together rather than dispersed. This meant they were more prey to attack by Japanese bombers.
2. In comparison to the Bloodlands camps, was the Bataan Death March just as brutal? If so, in what ways?
The Bataan Death March is a different event from the Holocaust. It was not concerned with a deliberate policy of genocide as in the German case. Indeed, as a whole Japan did not pursue a policy of genocide against ethnic groups, not even in the Nanking massacre. However, the Japanese army did engage in acts of extreme brutality that went against international law. This included the events at Nanjing, the widespread abuse of POWs and the use of chemical and biological weapons (against the Chinese).
3.Since America knew about Japan's pre-planned bombing on Pearl Harbor, why didn't American make an alliance with Japan prior to the bombing to prevent the destructive consequences?
There is no solid documentary evidence that US had foreknowledge of the attack of Pearl Harbor. This is merely a conspiracy theory.
4. From 1941 to 1946 the United States imprisoned Japanese Americans, who were considered a threat to the country, although they were native born Americans. How does the alienation of the Japanese American citizens alter the definition of a liberal democracy?
In retrospect the US did decide that the internment of Japanese Americans was an infringement of their civil rights, hence the formal apology that was offered to the Japanese American community by the American government in 1988. Democratic governments often find it difficult to walk the line between oppression and freedom during times of war as the desire to ensure the security of the majority is often seen as outweighing the rights of the few. This is true even when faced with terrorism let alone all-out war.
Professor Edward Baring Q&A Transcript
1. Why do you think countries like Latin America and Great Britain accepted Jewish refugees at first and later rejected them? How does this apply to majority over minority during the year of 1939?
I don't completely understand the last part of your question, but in answering the first part, you would have to look at a number of factors. The first wave of Jewish refugees from central Europe during the 1930s involved many very well educated immigrants from Germany. Having lost positions in academia or in the administration during the various purges of the middle 1930s (for instance the Nuremberg Laws), a large number of these refugees had more extensive contacts in the countries they moved to. Later especially with the flood of refugees from Eastern Europe, especially Poland, the social and economic status of many of the immigrants starts to shift and this helps explain the changing attitude towards them. Of course also after 1939 the conditions of War also changed the circumstances in which refugees were treated.
2.Since Hitler wanted to eliminate other races/nationalities through the final solution plan, in what way did Germany benefit from this genocide?
Most historians agree that Germany did not benefit from the Genocide. Indeed the ratcheting up of the "Final Solution" occurs as the tide starts to turn against Germany militarily, and then it shifted resources away from the fronts where they could have been put to better use. Though historians disagree on the effect on Nazi policies on the German economy during this period, there is a consensus that the genocide was driven more by ideology than practical concerns.
3. Why did the majority of people in Germany go along with Hitler's Nazis policies of persecuting the "subhumans"?
This is of course a profoundly difficult question and has occupied historians for generations. One can point to strands of anti-Semitism in Germany and especially the "eliminative" variety (this is central to Daniel Goldhagen's book Hitler's Willing Executioners) but you can find those ideas in many other countries too, and it is not clear that Germany is the worst offender. Your best bet is probably to look at economic factors. Germany was very badly hit by the Great Depression, in large part because of its reliance on American loans, and the changed conditions after 1929 allowed the massive rise of the Nazi party. Many Germans tended to ignore the more virulent aspects of Nazi anti-Semitism, and paid more attention to their anti-Communist message.
The question about how ordinary Germans participated directly in the Holocaust is a very different one. A good way to examine this would be to look at Christopher Browning's excellent book Ordinary Men, which gives a startling account of the way in which ordinary Germans became seasoned killers.
4. Following the end of War World II, why do you think that many Europeans preferred communism over liberal democracies, even though communism was one of the factors that initiated the war?
It don't think it was, or is, clear that Communism was "one of the factors that initiated the war." For many, especially in Eastern Europe, , the Communists were the people who had won the war and they had sacrificed far more blood than the other allies in the liberation of Europe. Moreover in countries that had been occupied by the Nazis, such as France, the Communists had generally cleaner records than many others. As a communist it was not possible to collaborate with the Nazi invaders, which is why Communists made up a very significant part of resistance movements in those countries. This helps explain the success of Communist parties in Western Europe for decades after the collapse of Nazi Germany. In Eastern Europe you must also remember that Communism came delivered by a Soviet tank, and there was only one free election in post-war Eastern Europe where the Communists won: Czechoslovakia in 1946. The Communists were in power, and so you just had to get with the program.