Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Pearl Harbor anniversary a reminder to remember

Posted 3 years ago on Dec. 7, 2011, 3:29 p.m. EST by darkhound (66)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Seventy years ago, as Pearl Harbor lay in ruin, President Franklin Roosevelt addressed a shocked nation from Washington. In a speech that lasted less than seven minutes, the president gravely described the "date which will live in infamy." Roosevelt predicted "always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us." I wonder if we're living up to that prediction.

According to a study of college seniors from elite universities, a third could not identify Germany, Italy and Japan as our World War II enemies. Almost two-thirds did not even know the Battle of the Bulge occurred during World War II.

This is not a matter of simply knowing dates. It's about our obligation to teach our young people about the pivotal moments in the defense of the free world — which still needs defending.

The Roman orator Cicero observed, "Not to know what happened before you were born is to remain forever a child." Are our young people developing into the adult citizens that a free society requires?

Colleges are failing to provide our students with the foundation they deserve and our country needs. A nationwide study of more than 1,000 colleges and universities, What Will They Learn? found 80 percent don't require students to take a foundational course in U.S. history.

Students can describe Occupy Wall Street in impassioned detail without knowing who occupied Europe in the 1940s, or why. Lady Macbeth has receded into near oblivion as Lady Gaga takes center stage.

But if we fail to educate our young people on the importance of freedom, our young people will remain — as Cicero said — children forever.

23 Comments

23 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 3 years ago

US Provoked Japanese Attack.

The McCollum memo, also known as the Eight Action Memo was a memorandum, dated October 7, 1940 (more than a year before the Pearl Harbor attack, sent by Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, who "provided the president with intelligence reports on [Japan]... [and oversaw] every intercepted and decoded Japanese military and diplomatic report destined for the White House" in his capacity as director of the Office of Naval Intelligence's Far East Asia section. It was sent to Navy Captains Dudley Knox, who agreed with the actions described within the memo, and Walter Stratton Anderson.

The memo outlined the general situation of several nations in World War II and recommended an eight-part course of action for the United States to take in regards to the Japanese Empire in the South Pacific, suggesting the United States provoke Japan into committing an "overt act of war".

[-] 0 points by darkhound (66) 3 years ago

That memo was dated, as you note, on Oct. 7, 1940.

Prior to that memo, on September 27, 1940, Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Nazi Germany (and Italy), which promised "to assist one another with all ... military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked."

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 3 years ago

Link?

I've read this story before.

[-] -1 points by darkhound (66) 3 years ago

Google it. It's everywhere.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 3 years ago

Link to the study.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 3 years ago

Link to the study or fess up that you started a thread without facts.

[-] -1 points by darkhound (66) 3 years ago

No thanks. I refuse both options.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 3 years ago

Then I will do it for you: You don't have any FACTS

[-] -1 points by darkhound (66) 3 years ago

Link to the study.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 3 years ago

That would be your job. :D But you failed.

[-] -1 points by darkhound (66) 3 years ago

Then I will do it for you: You don't have any FACTS

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 3 years ago

You started thread that contains no facts. You can't back that shit up. You might want to change that.

[-] -1 points by darkhound (66) 3 years ago

google.com. Also, dictionary.com/browse/spoonfeed

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 3 years ago

None of that makes it factual.

[-] -1 points by darkhound (66) 3 years ago

dictionary.com/browse/lazy

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 3 years ago

Show us the study. You went to college, right?

[-] 1 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 3 years ago

Roosevelt should have resigned because the naval ships where not sufficiently protected against an attack.

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 3 years ago

It is important that all countries defend their freedom from aggressors. Of course, WW2 was complicated. Japan tried to go back to traditional ways, after experimenting with Western values and being frightened off by the appaling US Depression in the 1930s. They bludered by getting involved with other nations, particularly China. In history, Japanese tradition was confined to Japan. They had little experience of dealing with other nations using their tradition. The US and UK blockaded them. Rather than coming to an agreement, which they should have, they paniced into attacking one of the blockaders, the US, starting a war they had little chance of winning.

The whole of WW2 was a set of tragic events, like the failed economic system of the 1930s and the harsh reparations/punishments placed on Germany by France after WW1.

Hopefully we have now learnt. China is now the emerging force, and they are a lot smarter in negotiating with the UK and the US than Japan was. Interestingly, Germany is starting to flex its muscles now.

[-] 0 points by darkhound (66) 3 years ago

US blockaded them because they signed a pact with Nazi Germany and Italy. They made an affirmative decision to attack China and then the US. They didn't panic into going into war.

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 3 years ago

I didn't know that. I always thought the US blockaded them over China. The blockade did virtually force them into war in their "traditional" view. You seem to know quite a lot. It seems that they could have certainly avioded getting involved with any war. I do know that a lot of this was caused by the English wanting to get the US involved in WW2.

[-] 0 points by darkhound (66) 3 years ago

Well, their takeover and pillaging of China was also a major factor, as it should have been. Japan hard-liners pressed for war... and they succeeded.

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 3 years ago

That was what I was saying about the Japanese going back to their old traditions, after thinking the Western model didn't work because of the Great Depression. Their adventure in China was new, as in the past, wars involving the "old ways" were internal in Japan. In my view, it was a pity that Japan took this way, and fought eventually with the US. Mind you, they put up a hell of a fight!