Perspectives - IB History of the Americas

Papers 1+2 content: Japanese expansion, German and Italian expansion, WW2, the Cold War

Japanese historians

• Japanese imperialism and militarism were key actors (Saburo Ienaga)

• Japan only went to war because of the oil embargo (Michiko Hasegawa)

• The starting point for the war was December, 1941

Left-wing Japanese historians

• War in the Pacific began in 1931 with the Manchurian Incident. 

• Hold the militarist capitalist clique responsible for a 15-year war.

Right-wing Japanese historians:

• December 1941 is the starting point for the “Great East Asia War” 

• support that Japan was freeing Asia from the exploitation of Western colonialism. 

• without the Japanese invasion of these territories there would have been no successful independence movements in the region in the post-war period. 

• Japan had been forced into a war with the USA by the oil embargo. 

Extreme right-wing Japanese historians

• Rape of Nanjing was fiction (Masaaki Tanaka). Other historians on the right (Hayashi) 

• 100-year struggle with the West (after the US arrived in 1853) called the war the “Holy War”

Orthodox American Historians

• Pacific War began in 1937 after the Marco Polo Bridge incident

• Japan waged a war of aggression and expansion.

• Japan was entirely responsible for the war in the Pacific (perspective presented at the Tokyo Crimes Tribunal.

• Pearl Harbor was evidence of Japan's aggression and in breach of the Geneva Convention.

Revisionist US historians

• Japan's actions up to 1941 were primarily aimed at purging Asia from Western corruption.

• US  encouraged Japanese actions in China in the 1930s, it encouraged Japanese actions

•  Roosevelt's role as key in provoking Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor (Boyle

  • Roosevelt knew about the Japanese attack as the Americans had broken their codes.

Traditionalist historians

•  Emperor had not wanted war but he had had no choice but to submit to the militarists

 Revisionist historians

• Usually writing after Hirohito's death, Hirohito was an aggressive supporter of Japanese expansionism (Sterling Seagrove), he could have intervened to stop the expansionists but he did not want to.

Perspective: Yes, Hitler had a clear plan for achieving his foreign policy goals when he took power in 1933

• Mein Kampf (1924) was a detailed plan that Hitler wrote while in jail which he then follows through with when he gets out 

  • Challenging the Treaty of Versailles with rearmament and the remilitarization of the rhineland 

• Hossbach Memorandum 

  • discusses aggressive foreign policy goals (like rearmament through/in Russia) 

• Spanish Civil War

Perspective: No, Hitler did not have a clear plan for achieving his foreign policy goals when he took power in 1933

• Non-aggression pact with Poland (1934) 

• Hossbach Memorandum 

  • only grappling with conflict in his own political sphere - Hitler was facing internal pressures and conflict 

  • Hitler shifted between aggression and pacification, he did not have a clear and direct goal to a major war 

• AJP Taylor - Hitler didn’t have a blueprint of how to achieve his objectives

  • His actions were determined by economic pressures and demands from the Nazi party, and he seized opportunities presented to him. 

Intentionalist Historians in regards to German expansion

• Hitler had a definite program of expansions and conquest with clear phases.

  • Ending the treaty of versailles and alliance with Britain and Italy

  • Defeat of France

  • Conquest of Russia

Globalist Historians in regards to German expansion

•  they go further and argue that Hitler’s ultimate aim was to take over the USA and thus achieve world domination. 

Left wing historians on Mussolini FP

• Mussolini has an overtly aggressive foreign policy and expansionist aims 

Right wing historians on Mussolini FP

• Italy did not have large-scale expansionist plans. In context of policies pursued pre 1914 by liberal Italian gov.

  • Mussolini pursued a ‘policy of the pendulum’ because he wanted to get France to argue to establish Italy as a power with an Empire in North Africa.

AJP Taylor on Mussolini FP

• Mussolini had expansionist goals, but there was a lot of conflict between Hitler and Mussolni’s foreign policies.

  • Mussolini thought Hitler would agree to leave Austria and Italy could play France and Germany off against each other, BUT, Hitler intended to achieve Anschluss.

German Historian Gerhard Shreiber on Mussolini FP

• Mussolini’s foreign policy was dependent on socio-economic domestic policy

  • foreign policy was used for propaganda purposes. 

Richard Overy on Mussolini FP

• Mussolini’s policies all centered around war in the 1930s. 

• Italy’s weakness was the economy because they were reliant on foreign sources for oil, coal, and iron, so Mussolnin declared for autarky, extending state control. 

  • By 1939 the state owned 80% of the country’s arms capacity - war economy in peacetime. 

Potential traditionalist perspective on the Korean war

• The Cold War had now become a global war as the USA sought to confront Communism in Asia as well as Europe.

Post-Revisionist Cold War Perspective

• Both sides should take some blame for the Cold War, because both were making moves to increase influence in Europe 

  • all of the western countries were suspicious of each other 

  • “Self Defense!” “No, Aggression!” 

Western/Traditional Cold War Perspective

•  Stalin had sinister intentions to spread communism, NATO was the Western countries’ defense 

Revisionist/Soviet Cold War Perspective

•  The Cold War shouldn’t be blamed on Stalin/USSR because Russia suffered huge losses over WWII and was trying to ensure that its neighbors were friendly. 

  • Border of Eastern EU communist states 

Stalin’s perspective regarding Communist China

• values their relationship with China but is also wary of a force/government that they cannot control. 

  • Mao was revolution of the peasant/agricultural class vs Stalin’s proletariat revolution

Cuban Missle Crisis Perspective- Bundy

• JFK’s decisions were political, not strategic, the US people would expect action and decisiveness. 

Historical perspectives on the New Deal policies

• Expansion of government power that alarms federalists and conservatives

• Keynesian view that the government could and should stabilize demand to prevent future depressions became dominant view in economic profession for the next 40 yrs minimum 

  • Traditional liberal economic policies saw the economy as self correction were cast aside

  • American economist Milron Friedman felt this put the USA on the wrong economic course and govt was too involved in economy

• Other side emerged that the people were the responsibility of the government

  • WIlliam Leuchenburg argues that the New Deal was a compassionate response to economic crisis; unintended consequence of expansion of gov’t

• New Left political movement in intellectuals in the 1960s and 1970s saw great depression as a missed opportunity for radical change

  • they did not see new deal as significant change in previous policy

  • Howard Zinn argued that only radical socialists noted that there was a threat to the political and economic systems that existed

    • Poor banded together and self organized - he argues that New Deal undermined this by favouring big business 

  • Strikes paralysed the state in California

    • American Federation of Labour listened to the demands and then absorbed and neutralized strikers

Contemporary critics of the New Deal - Political Left

• Upton Sinclair sought to end poverty in California, supported state run cooperatives along the lines of the Seattle exchange

  • Lost to Republicans for governor 

• Share our Wealth program

  • Included redistribution of wealth, caps on persona income

  • popular in louisiana

Other perspectives/critics of the New Deal

• Industrialists thought policies were too pro labour

• Farm labourers and sharecroppers in south didn’t like being excluded from his policies

• free marketeers hate intervention

• Communists and socialists felt he did little to help the working poor 

Perspective of an ordinary Japanese citizen in 1931 regarding Japanese invasion of Manchuria

The invasion of Manchuria was often seen as a justified and even heroic action that reflected Japan’s rightful ambition to secure resources and national prestige. Many Japanese, facing economic hardship during the Great Depression, viewed the army’s actions as a necessary step to ensure prosperity and survival, providing land, raw materials, and markets for Japan’s growing population. 

Perspective of the Chinese Government in 1931 regarding Japanese invasion of Manchuria

The Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 was an illegal and brutal act of aggression that violated Chinese sovereignty and humiliated the nation on the international stage. The Chinese leadership, already weakened by internal divisions and struggles against warlords, viewed the invasion as a blatant attempt by Japan to exploit China's political instability and seize valuable territory.

Perspective of the Japanese Government+Public regarding the Lytton Report

the Lytton Report was seen as biased, unjust, and dismissive of Japan’s legitimate interests in Manchuria. Japanese officials argued that their actions were necessary to protect their economic investments, safeguard Japanese citizens, and bring stability to a region plagued by Chinese disorder and anti-Japanese sentiment.

Perspective of the Chinese Government regarding the Lytton Report

the Lytton Report was a grave disappointment and a clear injustice. The Chinese leadership viewed the findings as a blatant endorsement of Japanese aggression and an international failure to recognize China’s sovereignty.

Cold War Traditionalists

The traditionalist perspective on the origins of the Cold War maintains that the Soviet Union, under Joseph Stalin, was the primary instigator of the conflict, and its aggressive actions in Eastern Europe and beyond directly led to the ideological and military confrontation between the United States and the USSR. Traditionalists argue that Stalin’s actions, such as the establishment of Soviet-controlled communist governments across Eastern Europe, violated the post-war agreements made at Yalta and Potsdam, thereby betraying the understanding that these regions would remain free or at least self-determined.

Cold War revisionists

Revisionists argue that the United States, rather than the Soviet Union, played a central role in the origins of the Cold War. They emphasize that U.S. foreign policy, particularly its economic and ideological goals, provoked Soviet reactions that led to the Cold War.

-Revisionists argue that the Cold War was driven largely by the United States' desire to establish global economic dominance and maintain control over markets, resources, and trade.

-The policy of containment, which was articulated by George Kennan in 1947 and became the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War, is often seen by revisionists as an aggressive strategy aimed at limiting Soviet influence, even where it posed no direct threat to the U.S. and its allies.

- Revisionists often point to President Harry S. Truman’s foreign policy decisions, particularly the Truman Doctrine (1947), which aimed to provide U.S. support to countries resisting communism, as an example of American interventionism.

Cold War Post-Revisionists

The post-revisionist perspective on the origins of the Cold War represents a middle ground between the traditionalist and revisionist views. Post-revisionists reject the idea that either the Soviet Union or the United States can be solely blamed for the Cold War.

Stalin perspective on Berlin Blockade

From Stalin’s perspective, the Berlin Blockade of 1948 was a strategic move designed to secure the Soviet Union's control over East Berlin and to resist the growing influence of the United States and its allies in post-war Europe. Stalin viewed the division of Germany and Berlin as a critical issue for Soviet security and the future of communism in Europe.

Britan perspective on Berlin Blockade

From Britain's perspective, the Berlin Airlift of 1948-1949 was a pivotal moment in the Cold War that showcased British resolve in standing firm against Soviet attempts to undermine Western influence in Berlin and Germany. As one of the Western powers involved in the post-war occupation of Germany, Britain had significant strategic and political interests in Berlin, a city located deep within Soviet-controlled East Germany. 

Castro’s Perspective on Cuban Missile Crisis

For Castro, the Cuban Missile Crisis was a necessary step to safeguard the Cuban Revolution and protect the island nation from the continued threat of U.S. aggression. Since the Cuban Revolution in 1959, Castro had faced a consistent campaign of economic sanctions, covert operations (including the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961), and the looming threat of military action by the United States.

JFK perspective on Cuban Missile Crisis

Kennedy viewed the discovery of Soviet missiles in Cuba as an immediate threat to U.S. national security. For Kennedy, the Cuban Missile Crisis was not just a Cold War confrontation; it was an existential threat to the survival of humanity. 

Traditionalist Perspective on Mussolini’s Intentions/Plans 

Imperial design, Mussolini had a big plan to restore Roman glory that was consistent with previous Italian fascist party 

Opportunist/Structuralist Perspective on Mussolini’s Intentions/Plans 

Fascist party was erratic and unprincipled, shifting between aggression and conciliation with no clear plan. 

Intentionalist Perspective on Mussolini’s Intentions/Plans 

Fascist party was subservient to domestic concerns and designed to strengthen Mussolini’s power and prestige.