The Good War~ Peter Ota

Peter Ota is a Japanese-American who was a young teenager during World War Two. He lived in Santa Anita, California when Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japense on December 7th, 1941. Immediately him and his family were "relocated" to a camp, the first of many to come. Ota was 15 at the time of entering the camp, along with his twelve year old sister, and ailing mother. His mother became very ill and was transfered to a hospital where she later died. Peter claims that his mother died from the shame of what was happening to her family. Peter's father, a well respected business man "lost everything that he worked for in one night" and humiliated and stripped from all his belongings. The family was separated and put in two different camps for a year and then were later reunited. Three years later Peter turned eighteen and enlisted in the army before he was drafted. He served along with the very men that took his family from their home and enprisoned them. Peter felt very awkward and angry and dealt with harrassment and depression in the army. He was called names like "dirty Jap" and had to be watched at all times by other officers. He was not even allowed to use the bathroom himself, there was always a guard there overseeing him.
After the war was over Peter married and moved back to Santa Anita and started a family. He felt that he could not show his Japanese heritage and did everything the "American Way." He lived in an all-white neighborhood, taught his children all about America, and even celebrated all the American Holidays. His daughter later asked him about the relocation camps, and all Peter could do was tear and choke up. The terrible conditions he suffered during World War Two left him with many scarrs. He lost his mother, was separated from his father and sister, had to serve with the very men who were taking them away, and dealt with harrassment ontop of that. Although the camps were not as severe as the concentration camps in Germany, many Japanese-American families were emotionally and mentally broken.

THe Boy in The Striped Pajamas.

Based on the novel by John Boyne, Young Bruno who lives a wealthy lifestyle in Pre-war Germany along with his mother, elder sister, and army Commandant father. The family re-locate to the countryside where his father is assigned to commandeer a prison camp.
A few days later, Bruno befriends another youth, strangely dressed in striped pyjamas, named Shmuel who lives behind an electrified fence. Bruno will soon find out that he is not permitted to befriend his new friend as he is a Jew, and that the neighboring yard is actually a prison camp for Jews awaiting extermination.
Bruno is lonely and confused by his new surroundings, and he doesn't understand why he can't wander the grounds or play at a nearby farm. The "farm," of course, is a concentration camp, though Bruno doesn't know this.
Shmuel is eight, the same age as Bruno, and the two form a timid, careful friendship, playing checkers and catch through the barbed wire fence. Bruno knows that his friendship with Shmuel is dangerous, but after witnessing brutal violence perpetrated against some very kind people, he has begun to question the Nazi doctrine of hate. He is no longer sure what to make of his soldier father, whom he once believed to be a hero. When he learns that Shmuel is in trouble, he vows to help him, and together the boys form an outrageous plan.
In this movie clip it will show you how the ending of the movie took place and how Bruno experienced the "life of a Jew", just within 5 minutes, and he was gone like the wind.
I posted this up bc it reminded me of the movie we saw in class "the night and fog"; a documentary film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9fFCY4kqvg

"The Good War": Alvin (Tommy) Bridges

As I was reading Studs Terkel's "The Good War", I enjoyed reading the chapter about crime and punishment. What really caught my eye was Alvin (Tommy) Bridges.

Bridges was a Bay City policemen for thirty-one years, and he was also a police chief. Bridges was an MP during World War II. He feels that the war was an useless war, he also feels that every war is. He also feels that this world won't last long if we have nuclear weapons around.

He goes into saying how he became an MP. He said that it wasn't because of his skills or knowledge he was just told he was going to be an MP. That kind of struck me as odd, wouldn't you place people in fields that they are strong, I felt by doing this they didn't care and it wasn't making the army strong.

Bridges talks about how dumb the officers were, and he couldn't believe thy actually made in through their assignment, and as he was talking about this he kept on laughing which was funny. Bridges describes his title as policemen "A lot of the GI's had respect for the MP and a lot of 'em hated our guts. Just like policemen. Worse, because we were the only ones who bothered 'em. The policemen in Paris didn't bother the GI's at all. If they were tearin' the place apart, they'd call us. We'd arrest 'em for anything from murder of another GI or civilian to sellin' one of those trucks."

Bridges also talks about when they got colored soldiers to their outfit, he said this was a first for the MP to have blacks and whites together.

Bridges talks about how they would shoot people violating the code of conduct. Bridges says "They shoot you in wartime for nothing...the Articles of War book looks like a bible..." Bridges never liked to stay and watch the shootings as some other MP's did. "I never liked to see anybody executed or anybody shot."

In closing Bridges talks about his feelings towards this war and war in general. He says this war was foolish, he also said that there is no war worth fighting for. Bridges feels the reason for war is money. I will end with a another quote from Bridges "But the airplane has come in its own, nuclear weapons...We don't be in this world for long."

Studs Terkel "The Good War": Grigori Baklavnov

These are some pictures of Mr. Terkel just in case we did't know what he looked liked.

One of the stories I read from "The Good War" was from a Mr. Girgori Baklanov who was a Russian war hero and author who wrote novels dealing with the subject of war. In the piece from Terkel's book Baklanov tells of how his children and grandchildren would ask him to tell them stories about the war. He says he does not like to talk or reminisce about the war. He goes on to tell how just by chance his family happens to exsist, because "only centimeters decided whether they should be here on this earth or not. Whether the bullet went that way or this way." He says they didn't understand that they are here by accident. I think this is a great point when we have to look at the effects of a war and how we can be blind to certain things like the fact one bullet can change the exsistence of somebody. I think Mr. Baklanov says it best, "The bullet that killed us today goes into the death of centuries and generations, killing life which din't come to exsist yet." If we think about now and relate it to the wars of today the same thing is happening, men and women are being killed and their families will never come to be, they will never have the chance to have their name carried on through time and history. Think about it..... one bullet, one bomb, one missle can change everything.

The Good War- John Kenneth Galbraith

John Kenneth Galbraith is an economist, memoirist and former ambassador to India. American war strategy was simply this: "We have airplanes, therefore they must be effective." Much of the reading is about the bombings that took place during WWII and the difference between the effects in Germany and Japan. There were 2 strategies taken towards bombing during the war. The British bombed at night and went for central cities. This was mainly because that was all they could find. this would most likely damage the working class because the poor usually resided in the center of there country, whereon the other hand the rich lived on the outskirts. American strategy involved daylight raids. Plants were aimed for but there was consistent problem with targeting.
A plant, which produced synthetic fuels, was successfully hit by the U.S. multiple times in central Germany. Truth is, The bombing on Germany by the U.S. and British had far less of an effect than they thought at the time. According to Galbraith there were three reasons for this; machine tools were relatively invulnerable and easily recovered, it was easy to decentralize production and move machinery to schools and churches as well as used substitutes to redesign equipment, and they were able to reorganize managements.
But what about the bombings in Japan? Japan did not have the same recovery as Germany. If Japanese plants were hit they would most likely stay out of production. This was mainly because during this time Japan was a small country with a small industrial base.
Galbraith states that the bomb did not end the Japanese war. There was already a decision for a peace treaty to get out of the war. The Japanese government at that time was very bureaucratic and the decision for negotiation took time to go into action. This decision was not known to Washington.
Galbraith goes on to discuss his personal view on what he has seen and how it has affected him. Galbraith grew up in Canada where his father was a major influence in the community(who eventually took a position on the draft board to be able to exempt anyone who didn't want to go) Many in this community had doubts about the justification of WWI. Because of this background Galbraith's approach to war was less enthusiastic. He knew that war was necessary for WWII for many reasons despite his background. Galbraith concluded by saying that "the visual impact of the air attacks and the horror of it is something I've lived with to this day."

"The Good War"- Dennis Keegan

Dennis Keegan had been listening to the radio when he got the news Peal Harbor was attacked. He recalls that at first the bombing didn't mean much to him. He thought it was impossible for America to get attacked.

He states that as it got later in the day he saw the mass hysteria form. He tells a story of getting stopped by a guard going over the Golden Gate Bridge. He later found out that night that a woman was killed for not stopping.

Well he was driving down town he explains how the city was in chaos. People were all over the city were smasing all the lights. The streets were packed and cars and the tolies couln't move. Rumors were flying like the Golden State Bridge was bombed and the city was being invaded.

Wartime

I've only finished reading the first two chapters of the book, yet, the main idea that I feel that Fussell is trying to hammer home is the United States naive attitude and view about the war. Most felt here in the States that it would be a fairly easy war to win and that using old and outdated war tactics would still garner victory. WWII changed the thinking of most of our top military brass to think outside the box. And when all else fails, you must do whatever it takes, by all means necessary, to win the battle. New military tactics, strategies, and equipment like area bombing, fire bombing, island hoping, and development of newer, stronger tanks needed to be adopted. I'm sure that one could make a case that the United States and her Allies view on how war victory is achieved led the the deaths of many more soldiers than may have been necessary. Arrogance is okay to have, but cockiness will only lead to one's demise. And I feel that it was a cockiness sort of attitude that we and the other allies had at the beginning of the war. Both the Germans and the Japanese quickly taught us that conventional military tactics would not be the way to victory. And it wasn't until the U.S. embraced these new ways to wage war that the tide began to change more in our favor.

"Blood on Our Hands?" Nicholas D. Kristof

The debate over the decision to use the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has always been a constant debate throughout the years ever since World War II ended. Was it necessary to end the war and save lives? Or was it an atrocity that should have been and always should be consider an inhumane act? Was its use just limited to the war or was it used to show power on a much larger scale out on the field (towards the Russians)? Were the Japanese ready to surrender or were they prepared to fight to the last man on the main island? These are few of the huge amounts of questions that are shown regarding the debate.

The before and after overhead pictures of Hiroshima.

The author of the article I looked at came from the New York Times bearing the title, “Blood on Our Hands?” by Nicholas D. Kristof. In his article he talks about the American perspective becoming negative over the years with the feeling that Japan would have surrendered eventually. The Japanese by the end of the war knew that victory was completely impossible by any means, and therefore it would seem that at some point they would have to give up. Kristof tries to counter this point by bringing up quotes from Japanese officials who participated in the move towards negotiation and surrender before the bombings. Some saying that the bomb was a “gift from heaven”, and that it helped move the Japanese government towards surrender. While on the other side of the table others thought that it would be best if the Japanese held out as long as possible, until either they were provided with a conditional surrender or in the worst case, completely wiped out. The bomb to the people on the idea of surrendering was a direct example of what the alternative of an immediate surrender would be, and that there would not be a heroic battle for the island because they would be blown right off of it. At the end Kristof concludes that although there might have been ways to maybe have prevented to bombing of Nagasaki or shown off the weapon on an uninhabited island, the death of those in both cities would pale in comparison to how many lives would have been lost to an invasion of Japan.

A draw up of Operation Downfall, the plans to invade Japan.

Now with all of these points that have supported both sides of both arguments I feel that the only real conclusion that can be brought to is that there cannot be any real answer for the things we do in times of war. Each decision made can go both ways, but the one chosen should not always be seen as the worst or best choice made. After World War II and to present day, atomic and nuclear weapons are only used as threats and not active weapons in war. Maybe it is possible to not look at the event as a whole but more of who and when. It is known that the development of atomic weapons was taking place in countries through the world, and naturally one of those countries would try and test it in a real conflict. The atomic bomb appeared on the battlefield on the end of a long and tired war, if the bomb was not dropped then when would it have been dropped? Even during the Korean War there were ideas thrown around about the use of these weapons, and thankfully they were not used. At the time of its use the Atomic bomb belonged to the United States and nobody else. If it were to be used later on, when other countries had the capabilities, it would be possible to assume that these weapons could have been used in unimaginable amounts during any of the conflicts that had occurred during the Cold War era. How would a country like China, with a very large population have reacted to a use of an atomic weapon on Northern Korea? (China borders North Korea.) What if the Soviet Union used one of its atomic weapons on one of its satellite states to make an example to those who did not accept Communism at the time? With these thoughts in mind it might be best to put away the argument of “Was it necessary” and think more about “When would have it become necessary?”

The Good War - Timuel Black

Timuel Black is depicted a great man who served his country and was loyal to his community and family in his interview with Terkel. His tone for his depiction of wartime is as always gripping in its detail but he is also satirical in his delivery. Mainly due to the fact that the war for him like many African Americans serving in World War Two wasn't just a war being fought on the fields of France, but it was also being fought along the lines of white and black. War was a struggle for Timuel Black just like every single Negro soldier who served during World War Two.

The fight for equality for Black was seen not only seen in the segregated regiments of the Army but also but the biased tests that the army gave to incoming draftees. As northern educated men such as himself was still put below in rank to his uneducated comrade solely in an effort to suppress what might be a substantial voice. Or how him and his other fellow man were put to being servants and supply carriers when many felt the need to fight and die for their flag.

Black describes the liberation of the Buchenwald prison camp and the storming of the beach at Utah. Describing it with a wit and charm, where most veterans would cringe and shutter at the memory of D-Day. He even describes himself as solemn as he watched his fellow man die and cry for mercy in the face of the big German gun. He described these horrific happenings during wartime, but was still so deeply disturbed by the horrors of American racism, segregation, and bigotry he describes more than once the desire to stay in Europe. He describes the open compassion Europeans showed the African American soldier as not a black man trying to overcome but as a liberator, a hero, and a friend.

This passage really gripped me and showed the split that there is an was in the United States armed forces when it comes to discrimination. Black's commentary on the war is shocking, in some respect. He describes the liberated French man as embracing and embracing his love of jazz music. Something so important in African American culture, can be enjoyed by a man who in France for over 3 years was in the death grip of Nazi control. When your white comrade who fights, bleeds, and dies for the same flag wont even use the same bathroom as you, shows just how un-united the United States really was.

"The Good War"- Don McFadden

Don McFadden was 16 when the war broke out. He was too young to sign up for the war, but the year after, he worked in a foundry, filing castings for airplanes. He felt that he was making a contribution to the war effort. One day, while at work, he was told to collect magnesium dust for chemical analysis. They tried to catch the dust in a paper bag which was tied to a grinding stone. A spark hit the magnesium and McFadden caught on fire. He was burned from the waist up and had third degree burns all over his body.

He spent the year of 1942 in the hospital and he felt that he was a civilian casuality of the war. He took the foundry to court to try to prove negligence but they threw it out of court.

McFadden spoke about the zoot-suit riots. Zoot suit was a style of dress mostly worn by Mexican Americans. He explains a zoot suit riot began with some sailors confrontation with zoot suits. The word was that a sailor had been stabbed and many servicemen gathered and began grabbing anyone with a zoot suit on. McFadden and his brother heard the news on the radio and decided to get involved in the zoot suit riot.

McFadden and his brother wound up in jail because he hit a detective (without knowing it was a detective). The jails were full of Mexicans and they were the only non-Mexicans there. They were in jail, not because they did anything wrong, but because they were victims and the cops were trying to keep them from getting hurt.

A lot of people got hurt. McFadden saw a young man get beat up riding a street car just because he was Mexican. Servicemen would even go into movie theaters, make the projectionist turn off the film, and drag any zoot suiters they saw out of their seats and beat them.

McFadden felt the war pulled the United States out of isolation and pulled us out of the Depression. He said that it was an interesting time to be alive and that the war made him grow up a lot faster.