By Jim Mamer / Original to ScheerPost
Part 1 of this series explored how high school American history textbooks present opposition to war, dealing with the American Revolution, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish American War and World War I. Part 3 will deal with the Vietnam War. The focus here is on World War II and the Korean War, both of which faced very little opposition. Nevertheless, even that opposition is missing from textbooks.
The professed object of war generally is to preserve liberty and produce a lasting peace; but war never did and never will preserve liberty and produce a lasting peace…
David Low Dodge
American activist and theologian, 1815
The problem is not how to get rid of the enemy, but rather how to get rid of the last victor. For what is a victor but one who has learned that violence works? Who will teach him a lesson?
Niccolò Tucci
Two Observations on World War III, 1945
To fully understand the causes of past wars, and whatever opposition to them that existed, students must learn to analyze what fostered the build-up to war. Was it injustice and tension? Arrogance? Competition over control of land and resources? Attempts to acquire “spheres of influence?” Religious conflicts including claims that “god” prefers one group over another? And, of course, political pressure from various versions of a military-industrial complex? Can one war lead to another? Can opposition to war be patriotic?
The history of wars in textbooks is presented as separate historical episodes, with an agreed upon start and an agreed upon end. Generally they are disconnected from other wars and even disconnected from policy decisions that can underlie conflict.
To make things simple, wars are often seen as the result of a single incident, making student understanding of historical complexity seem unnecessary. And this temptation to point to a single cause is made stronger by the use of meaningless multiple-choice questions such as: What caused World War I? Answer: The assassination of Franz Ferdinand.
United States in World War II
Approved textbooks are all similar in that they often describe history as a series of events without pausing to do much analysis.
In “History Alive!” The road to WWII is pretty simple. In the text, the section begins with the question: “Could World War II have been prevented?” That is something worth consideration, but it is never addressed. Instead, the focus is on the rise of totalitarian governments ending with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Why would a textbook pose that question without attempting an answer? I can’t help but believe that a response was not the point. Was it perhaps meant rhetorically, hoping to encourage students to conclude that WWII was unavoidable given the rise of totalitarian governments and the attack at Pearl Harbor? That makes it easier to present WWII solely as a defensive response.
A serious response to the question would likely violate the practice of presenting wars as separate historical episodes, but the logical response would be that WWII could have been prevented if preventing another war had been the point of the Versailles conference at the end of WWI. Zero-sum international politics always creates victors and victims.
In “The Americans” the history is slightly more complex, beginning with a very short summary of how the Versailles treaty brought desperation to the vanquished by blaming the war solely on Germany and its allies.
That is followed by a description of Japan’s attempt to build a colonial empire stretching from Manchuria to Indonesia (Labeled the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere). By 1940, the only functioning colonial power in Asia, other than Japan, was the U.S., which encouraged Japan’s attack on the largest U.S. naval base in the Pacific at Pearl Harbor.
Nevertheless, the seriousness of this beginning is quickly overwhelmed by the need for a simple cause, summarized in the section title, “Dictators Threaten World Peace.”
Finding the Roots of WWII
Any examination of the causes of WWII must begin with an analysis of what happened before, and especially at the end of, WWI. If that were done honestly, and if preventing another war had been the real objective at Versailles, WWII may have been prevented.
Instead, what happened was that the victors (Great Britain, France, Italy, and the United States) organized a conference among themselves. They did not invite the defeated Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria) and they excluded post-revolutionary Russia.
Versailles was little more than a series of conversations among vengeful victors. And, in the end, they dangerously and unambiguously forced Germany and other Central powers to accept blame for the war and demanded financial restitution amounting to 132 billion gold marks, or more than $500 billion (in 2019). There were those who saw what was coming.
John Maynard Keynes, chief representative of the British Treasury, recognized the disaster in the making and left the conference in protest. He outlined his position in The Economic Consequences of the Peace, explaining that the treaty made “no provisions for the economic rehabilitation of Europe—nothing to make the defeated Central empires into good neighbors, nothing to stabilize the new states of Europe…”
These failures, he wrote, would lead to “the rapid depression of the standard of life of the European populations to a point which will mean actual starvation for some … and submerge civilization itself in their attempts to satisfy desperately the overwhelming needs of the individual.”
The new European governments struggled to find stability and post-revolutionary Russia moved toward a civil war. Great Britain, France, the U.S., and Japan joined the fight and backed the anti-communist “Whites” against the communists, but the Red Army won and established the Soviet Union.
In 1924, Lenin, the leader of the Russian Revolution died, leaving Stalin in charge. In the textbooks there is discussion of economic and social chaos mostly in Germany. But the participation of allied nations against the communists in Russia and the loss of millions of Russian people in the civil war is not even mentioned.
In the end, WWII is simply portrayed as a defensive act, and America’s late entry into the war is seen as a result of Pearl Harbor.
American opposition to participation in World War II
Despite a common impression that American participation in WWII was supported by almost all Americans, there were small but significant groups in opposition. In the textbooks, opposition to this war is irresponsibly ignored.
Among the major national peace organizations were the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), American Friends Service Committee (Quakers), and the War Resisters League (WRL).
None of these organizations organized major demonstrations against the war, but they did assist conscientious objectors and they supported the postwar formation of the United Nations. What follows are two important manifestations of anti-war actions before and during WWII. In most textbooks there is little or no examination of their effects on the war effort.
Conscientious Objectors
The Selective Service Act of 1940 broadened the definition of conscientious objectors (COs) to include any person who, “by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.” This meant that COs did not have to belong to one of the “Peace Churches,” but it still excluded those not part of a religious group.
There were more than 70,000 men who were granted conscientious objector (CO) status in WWII. Most were members of the Peace Churches (Quakers, Amish, Mennonites and Brethren).
For refusing to register for the draft or for rejecting alternative service work, 6,600 men were imprisoned. The majority of those were Jehovah’s Witnesses. whose beliefs differ from those in the Peace Churches.
Most COs accepted alternative public service, such as firefighting, but many worked in undermanned psychiatric hospitals, and others volunteered as human “guinea pigs,” participating in studies to test the effects of medicines, pesticides, and the limits of human endurance.
25,000 COs joined the U.S. armed forces in noncombat roles such as medics and chaplains. They were often regarded as cowards. They were not. Desmond T. Doss, a Seventh-day Adventist, was a medic. He treated wounded men under fire on Guam and was awarded a Bronze Star. On Okinawa he successfully rescued 75 men who were too wounded to retreat under their own power. For that he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Although all these conscientious objectors were involved in resistance, for some reason only Quakers are ever mentioned in textbooks, but never in connection to WWII. In fact, the term “conscientious objector” is mentioned only once in each text, both times in connection to World War I.
Other Opposition Groups: America First and The German-American Bund
When World War II began in 1939, Congress and much of the American public continued to favor neutrality. For different reasons, America First, The German-American Bund and their comrades in the KKK opposed U.S. participation in the war, but in the textbooks, none of this is examined as having played any part in Roosevelt’s delay in entering the war.
America First
America First was founded in 1940 largely to oppose U.S. entry into the war against Germany. Members were often accused of being pro-Nazi, but some denied it, claiming that they were more isolationist than pro-German and that they advocated the United States build up a defense strong enough to protect itself.
What is certain is that members of America First did not regard a German victory in Europe as fearful enough to go to war to avoid it. The group is mentioned only once in “The Americans” and only then in connection to the antisemitic aviator Charles Lindbergh who, it is said, “risked his reputation” by being associated with it. Most pacifists avoided this group entirely because it was in favor of building a massive armed defense. The group was dissolved on Dec. 11, 1941, four days after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
German-American Bund
The German American Bund was an organization of ethnic Germans living in the United States. It was founded in 1936 as a successor to the Friends of New Germany. The new name was meant to emphasize its American credentials after the press accused it of being unpatriotic. Much of its activity was marked by a pro-Nazi stance.
Its rallies often led to clashes—even street battles—with other groups. One rally held in Madison Square Garden in February 1939 drew a crowd of about 20,000 some of whom chanted “Heil Hitler” and according to an NPR broadcast some attendees also wore Nazi armbands, waved American flags and held posters with slogans like “Stop Jewish Domination of Christian America.” The Bund officially disbanded in December 1941 when the U.S. government outlawed the group.
Scurrilous Attacks on Pacifists and Conscientious Objectors in WWII
I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.
Albert Einstein
January 1931
One of the most bizarre, but predictable, accusations during and after WWII was that pacifists were responsible for Axis aggression.
According to Lawrence S. Wittner, during the war, Norman Vincent Peale (author of The Power of Positive Thinking) claimed that, “Due to the popular feeling against war we allowed ourselves to get into such a position that we were totally unprepared, thus giving the Germans an opportunity to make this war.”
Also according to Wittner, ” The “belief in pacifist culpability developed as one of the strongest rationales for the American faith in armaments.” He also quotes a “representative of the armaments industry” warning that, “We now know that American military planes must excel those of any other nation.”
Most of the time textbooks favor simplicity over complexity. And while that might be a reason to ignore inconvenient groups like conscientious objectors or the German-American Bund, it is no way to encourage students to critically examine their own history.
The Korean War
For a very long time the Korean peninsula was home to a unified Korea. In 1905 it was occupied by Japan and formally annexed five years later marking the beginning of 35 years under Japanese colonial rule.
At the end of World War II, Korea became a casualty of the emerging Cold War when it was divided into two “occupation zones” at the 38th parallel by two victors of WWII, then rival superpowers. The Soviet Union set up a communist government in the north and the United States supported a military government in the south.
The Korean War was fought from 1950 to 1953. By the end thousands of homes, factories, roads, hospitals, and schools had been destroyed. South Korean casualties are estimated at 1.2 million. North Korean casualties are estimated at 1.5 million.
According to most reports there were about 37,000 American military casualties. The war had cost the United States an estimated $20 billion (not adjusted for inflation). Chinese casualties are disputed, but they are all large. Chinese sources estimate 180,000 Chinese deaths while western sources estimate about 400,000. The war ended where it started, at the 38th parallel.
Textbook descriptions of the Korean War
In “The Americans” the entire Korean War is covered in three pages. However, a few pages before that, in a section on the Chinese civil war, there is a vague connection made between WWII, the Cold War and the conflict in Korea, “American involvement in Korea grew out of events that took place during World War II in the early years of the Cold War.”
In “History Alive!” The Korean War is covered in only two pages. And again, coverage begins with another vaguely worded hint of a relationship to WWII. “Like China, Korea was able to break free of Japanese control when World War II ended. At that time, Soviet troops occupied the Korean Peninsula north of the 38th parallel, while the U.S. military held the area to the south.”
Unfortunately, both of these textbooks deny students the information necessary to understand the roots, the substance, and the consequences of the Korean War.
Opposition to American participation in the Korean War
According to Professor Conlin, “there was less of a movement opposed to [the Korean War] than any other American war…even staunch internationalists rallied behind the war effort because, formally, the United States was acting for the United Nations.”
Additional Factors Limiting Opposition to the war in Korea
There were at least three factors that contributed to lack of opposition to the Korean war: Containment; Corporate Media; and McCarthyism.
Cold War Hysteria: The Russians are Coming
American foreign policy after WWII was focused on the containment of communism. In April of 1950, the American policy of containment was defined and rationalized in a National Security Council report known as NSC-68. In this report is a recommendation that the U.S. use whatever force necessary to “contain” communist expansionism “regardless of the intrinsic strategic or economic value.”
Essentially, NSC-68 justified the paranoid atmosphere of the early Cold War, making nonintervention in Korea unacceptable. Using an early version of the infamous domino theory President Truman stated that, “If we let Korea down, the Soviet[s] will keep right on going and swallow up one [place] after another.”
Thus, in the context of the Cold War, the struggle in Korea became a primary concern and that led the Truman administration to imagine that the war could lead to Soviet aggression in Europe.
If students are expected to develop even a minimal understanding of post-war U.S. foreign policy, then NSC-68 is essential. Unfortunately, in the textbooks there is no serious discussion of the impact made by NSC-68; it only merits a short sidebar mention in one text and does not appear in the other.
When the Korean War ended with an armistice, it ended in a stalemate. Despite all the Cold War hysteria, Korea remained divided and the United States was still standing. A stalemate officially meant that there were no victors. But of course, most of the losers were Koreans on both sides of the divide.
Perhaps that merited a re-evaluation of the textbook assumption that communism was monolithic or necessitated containment “regardless of the intrinsic strategic or economic value.” No such re-evaluation seems to have occurred.
Corporate Media helped generate support for the Korean War
In 1989 Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman published “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media” in which they convincingly argue that corporate control of mass media functions to generate consent for U.S. foreign policy.
One way to generate support for the Korean War specifically was to always put it in the context of Cold War containment, thus blaming aggression on the Soviet Union or by appealing to race prejudice (also used in WWII against the Japanese). Here are some examples:
- Absurdly, U.S. News and World Report attributed the war to an offensive by the Kremlin.
- “The Lessons of Korea,” an article written by Joseph and Stewart Alsop in the Saturday Evening Post suggested that a weak American military was responsible for the war in Korea. Korea, they wrote, “was the first episode of an attempt to bring all Asia and all Europe within the Soviet empire.”
- Hanson Baldwin, a New York Times military correspondent, wrote that the United States was “facing an army of barbarians in Korea…as relentless, as reckless of life, and as skilled in the tactics of the kind of war they fight as the hordes of Genghis Khan.”
McCarthyism
In addition to the problems motivated by a cheerleading news media, an organized anti-war movement would have had to overcome the repressive climate of McCarthyism, which consisted of relentless accusations of disloyalty (or communist influence) without regard to evidence.
Again, according to Lawrence Wittner, even pacifists found that “their allies fell in line behind the Truman policy [of war]. Immediately after the dispatch of American troops, the Federal Council of Churches rushed word of its support. The Socialist Party’s National Action Committee voted unanimously to back the [military] action.”
As a result, he concludes, “pacifists were reduced pretty much to talking to themselves.”
Despite Everything Pacifists Remained Pacifists
Despite everything, there were religious pacifists who applied for conscientious objector status during the Korean War. Mennonites and Brethren seem to have made up the majority.
By 1953 at the end of the war, Selective Service had approved more than 1,200 institutions and agencies for CO service and over 3,000 men were enrolled. Of more than 2,000 Mennonite COs, some served in the Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital in New Jersey. Three of them took part in an oral history project in 2018.
Paul Clemens, one of those in the project, spoke of working at the hospital beginning at the age of 22, and he explains that he became a CO because, as a Mennonite, he was forbidden to kill, but that he wanted to “help humanity” in some way.
The pacifist opposition to war survived despite containment hysteria; despite corporate media enthusiasm, and despite the ever-present threats of McCarthyism. They are part of the story of American opposition to war and should be remembered.
Next stop, Vietnam: My examination of textbook coverage of American wars and how opposition to those wars is presented will conclude in Part 3, with a look at the American war in Vietnam.
Why am I so obsessed with the issue of teaching an inclusive and honest history?
Why I am writing so much about how textbooks present war and opposition to war? It is something I struggled with for 35 years teaching high school history. Perhaps because this country is consistently at war, or maybe because those consistent wars are generally accepted as normal. Maybe it is because we all need to learn that opposition to aggressive war can be both responsible and patriotic.
In my classes, I tried to do all I could to fill in the blanks, but I rarely found the time to rant about what I found lacking in the texts. Now I’m retired and I still can’t get the missing links out of my head. The biggest missing link, perhaps, may be the way in which wars are taught.
The fact is that the majority of American history textbooks continue to describe the accepted arguments for wars but they rarely analyze the credibility of those arguments. How is that legitimate? At the same time, they often ignore or minimize opposition. Again, how is that legitimate? It is no secret that history texts need to be “approved” to be used in state schools and I suppose that is exactly why most of them avoid inconvenient truth. Perhaps that is the real meaning of “what they don’t know, won’t hurt them.” But the truth is, what they don’t know might hurt them; it might even kill them and eventually us.
So I write, hoping that I can get others to share my obsession with teaching an honest and inclusive history. Join me and become obsessed.
Please share this story and help us grow our network!
Jim Mamer
Jim Mamer is a retired high school teacher. He was a William Robertson Coe Fellow for the Study of American History at Stanford University in 1984. He served as chair of the History and Social Sciences department for 20 years (first at Irvine High and then at Northwood High). He was a mentor teacher in both Modern American History and Student Assessment. In 1992 he was named History and Social Sciences Teacher of the Year by the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS).
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.