PDA

View Full Version : American racism during WWII?


lionking
1st September 2010, 12:50 AM
Firstly, anyone who knows my posting history understands I'm not a US basher, quite the opposite in fact. This thread has no hidden agenda.

I was reading the review of a new book called "Moral Combat: A History of World War II" by Michael Burleigh, which I think I will purchase. While the book rightly covers the atrocities of the Nazis and Japanese, it doesn't spare the allies, particularly the US. A couple of passages in the review:


Nazi and facist sympathisers were never rounded up, but all 110,000 Japanese-Americans were interned, often under terrible conditions.


And:


While killing every German soldier was never considered a prerequisite to defeating Hitler, a US propaganda poster, published after news of the Bataan death march, exhorted Americans to "stay on the job until every murdering Jap is wiped out"


So were there strategic military reasons for internment and calling for extermination of Japanese, or was it purely racist?

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 03:35 AM
It was fear and anger to a great extent, with possibly some potential trouble-makers caught up in the net.

Oh, and German and Italian aliens were rounded up, it's a persistent myth that they weren't. Not wholesale like it was with the Japanese, but it happened.

Finally, in regard to racism in the US in general:


Command of Negro Troops

ENGINEER TRAINING CENTER POLICY AND REQUIREMENT (ibiblio.org/export/sunsite/users/pha/html/policy/1944-11-17.html)

By JOHN H. SHERMAN, Lt. Col, T. C. Commanding 14th E. T. Group

Delivered November 17, 1944 to 300 new officers, many of whom were unwilling to work with Negroes and were trying to get transfers to other Services. Colonel Sherman therefore found it necessary in one session to compel obedience to assignment and to sell his officers the official War Department attitude and doctrine relative to Colored troops.

By orders of the Commanding General this address was made required reading for every officer assigned to duty with Negro troops. Until recently it was classified secret and could not be published.

Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. XII, pp. 217-220.

lionking
1st September 2010, 03:48 AM
Oh, and German and Italian aliens were rounded up, it's a persistent myth that they weren't. Not wholesale like it was with the Japanese, but it happened.



I'm happy to accept this, but any links?

Professor Yaffle
1st September 2010, 04:08 AM
I'm happy to accept this, but any links?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_internment#World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_American_internment

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 04:17 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_internment#World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_American_internment

Ta-Da.


Thanks.

arthwollipot
1st September 2010, 04:21 AM
I don't think it's really any surprise that people who may have links to The Enemy are considered security risks during wartime.

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 04:38 AM
I don't think it's really any surprise that people who may have links to The Enemy are considered security risks during wartime.

What is a surprise (or used to be, anyway) is that some people think racism is the exclusive property of the US.

lionking
1st September 2010, 04:40 AM
What is a surprise (or used to be, anyway) is that some people think racism is the exclusive property of the US.
Where did you get that from the OP?

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 04:44 AM
Where did you get that from the OP?

From 20 years on the Internet, mostly. And from grading papers at Purdue. And from reading endless articles and books about how racist America was during WWII.

Kevin_Lowe
1st September 2010, 05:01 AM
Probably more significant was the Australian and American habit of murdering captured or surrendered Japanese soldiers and taking trophies from Japanese dead.

Wikipedia link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Australia)

If this sort of thing is news to you, it might explain why I think I recall you expressing pro-war views in the past. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to support its repetition.

Kevin_Lowe
1st September 2010, 05:03 AM
From 20 years on the Internet, mostly. And from grading papers at Purdue. And from reading endless articles and books about how racist America was during WWII.

Damn, those straw men sure are persecuting good, honest Americans. I wish somebody had the guts to stand up to them on the internet!

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 05:05 AM
Damn, those straw men sure are persecuting good, honest Americans. I wish somebody had the guts to stand up to them on the internet!

*pat, pat, pat*

aggle-rithm
1st September 2010, 05:13 AM
So were there strategic military reasons for internment and calling for extermination of Japanese, or was it purely racist?

This was commented on in the movie "Midway". The son of Charlton Heston's character was dating (engaged to?) a Nisei woman whose parent were interned. He asked the rhetorical question, "Why are Japanese-Americans being interned but not German-Americans? What's the difference?" To which Heston's character replied, "Pearl Harbor, I guess."

I think it's a little racism mixed in with the fact that Japanese-Americans were easier to spot.

FYI, German-Americans were treated pretty badly during WWI, not nearly so much during WWII. Not sure what changed between the two wars, but the German immigrants may have had time to assimilate into American culture more.

aggle-rithm
1st September 2010, 05:16 AM
I don't think it's really any surprise that people who may have links to The Enemy are considered security risks during wartime.

Some of it may have to do with unfamiliarity with Japanese culture. If you don't understand the enemy's culture, then it's hard to judge how much loyalty immigrants from that culture have to their homeland. Unfamiliarity breeds suspicion.

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 05:20 AM
FYI, German-Americans were treated pretty badly during WWI, not nearly so much during WWII. Not sure what changed between the two wars, but the German immigrants may have had time to assimilate into American culture more.
I saw a short film on that, produced in 1943, IIRC, set in WWI. The father was loyal to his homeland, but caused no trouble. He was questioned, watched, and harassed by his neighbors. The mother was a fence-sitter, but volunteered to roll bandages for the US troops (and was refused by "patriotic" ladies.) The son, in the Army before the war, was not allowed to go to France with his unit because he was "risk". The film pointed the problem with that kind of thinking. I don't know of one similar done on the Japanese-Americans.

kookbreaker
1st September 2010, 05:22 AM
FYI, German-Americans were treated pretty badly during WWI, not nearly so much during WWII. Not sure what changed between the two wars, but the German immigrants may have had time to assimilate into American culture more.

It was 1 part the fact that by WW2 the ties of German-Americans to the old country had faded quite a bit. The anti-German antics had reduced German-American identity quite a bit when they were forced to stop holding church services in German, etc.

Also, there was the detail that the US needed more "reminders" of whose side they were on in WW1 since for most of the war the US wasn't really a big supporter of either side (as far as public opinion went, our munitions trades told a different story).

And the fact is that the US was genuinely ashamed of its paranoid antics vs. German-Americans during WW1.

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 05:29 AM
And the fact is that the US was genuinely ashamed of its paranoid antics vs. German-Americans during WW1.
Public lynching of dachshunds was probably the low point of that madness.

aggle-rithm
1st September 2010, 05:30 AM
I saw a short film on that, produced in 1943, IIRC, set in WWI. The father was loyal to his homeland, but caused no trouble. He was questioned, watched, and harassed by his neighbors. The mother was a fence-sitter, but volunteered to roll bandages for the US troops (and was refused by "patriotic" ladies.) The son, in the Army before the war, was not allowed to go to France with his unit because he was "risk". The film pointed the problem with that kind of thinking. I don't know of one similar done on the Japanese-Americans.

Ironically, there were Nisei soldiers who fought honorably in the European theater while their families were in internment camps back home.

NoZed Avenger
1st September 2010, 05:32 AM
Pearl Harbor probably factored into it some, as well. Hard to know how much.

paximperium
1st September 2010, 05:37 AM
Ironically, there were Nisei soldiers who fought honorably in the European theater while their families were in internment camps back home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Regimental_Combat_Team
The most decorated Regiment in US Armed forces history

Spindrift
1st September 2010, 05:43 AM
Probably more significant was the Australian and American habit of murdering captured or surrendered Japanese soldiers and taking trophies from Japanese dead.

Wikipedia link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Australia)

If this sort of thing is news to you, it might explain why I think I recall you expressing pro-war views in the past. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to support its repetition.

It's not news. Just recently the HBO mini-series Pacific dealt with this very subject. Perhaps it developed from the Japanese treatment of American prisoners from the start of the war e.g. Bataan Death March. Or the Japanese habit of feigning surrender. The Pacific Theater was brutal warfare. Neither side played by the Marquess of Queensberry rules. Does that justify it? No, but in the context of times it makes it comprehensible.

Those who don't understand the context of history are doomed to misunderstand it.

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 05:47 AM
Probably more significant was the Australian and American habit of murdering captured or surrendered Japanese soldiers and taking trophies from Japanese dead.
There's a "lovely" image from Life magazine of a pretty young thing sending a "thank you" note to her boyfriend for the present he sent her. The present, sitting on her desk, is a Japanese skull.

Spindrift
1st September 2010, 05:52 AM
Nazi and facist sympathisers were never rounded up, but all 110,000 Japanese-Americans were interned, often under terrible conditions.

Based on that quote, I'm not sure that book is reliable unless there is some qualifying statment that was omitted.

Not all Japanese-Americans were interred. In Hawaii they interred about 10% of the Japanese-Americans. The internments were most in the Western states. On the east coast, they didn't round up all the Japanese.

Nazi and fascist sympathizers were rounded up. Just not every German and Italian on the East Coast.

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 06:00 AM
Nazi and fascist sympathizers were rounded up. Just not every German and Italian on the East Coast.
The leading lights of the German-American Bund, for example.

kookbreaker
1st September 2010, 06:00 AM
Based on that quote, I'm not sure that book is reliable unless there is some qualifying statment that was omitted.

Not all Japanese-Americans were interred. In Hawaii they interred about 10% of the Japanese-Americans. The internments were most in the Western states. On the east coast, they didn't round up all the Japanese.

Nazi and fascist sympathizers were rounded up. Just not every German and Italian on the East Coast.

The fear was that while Germany's ability to invade the US was limited Japan was considered a threat - if not for actual invasion than for making a hash of things. That Niihau incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_Incident) where a downed Japanese pilot from Pearl Harbor convinced some Japanese Americans to go on a killing spree was probably worse than Pearl Harbor itself.

On the East Coast, the biggest threat was the American Bund. That was being watched like a hawk but was already reduced to a pale shadow.

Kevin_Lowe
1st September 2010, 06:00 AM
It's not news.

To Lionking it is. Are you Lionking?


Just recently the HBO mini-series Pacific dealt with this very subject. Perhaps it developed from the Japanese treatment of American prisoners from the start of the war e.g. Bataan Death March. Or the Japanese habit of feigning surrender. The Pacific Theater was brutal warfare. Neither side played by the Marquess of Queensberry rules. Does that justify it? No, but in the context of times it makes it comprehensible.

Those who don't understand the context of history are doomed to misunderstand it.

Ah yes. Look what those dastardly Japanese made us do! :rolleyes:

The idea that if you don't condone war crimes, it's just because you don't understand how it was back then is malignant nonsense. I do not accept special pleading when it comes to war crimes. If it's a crime for them to do it, it's a crime for us to do it. If they don't get to excuse themselves by pointing the finger at someone else, we don't get to either.

You don't have the moral right to condemn Nazi and Japanese atrocities unless you condemn "your" side's atrocities as well. So will I see you in the "holohoax" threads defending the Nazis? Or are you going to grow up and accept the idea that we have our own share of atrocities to acknowledge, and that downplaying them the way the holocaust deniers downplay Nazi atrocities makes you very similar to them?

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 06:09 AM
That Niihau incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_Incident) where a downed Japanese pilot from Pearl Harbor convinced some Japanese Americans to go on a killing spree was probably worse than Pearl Harbor itself.

How many? One, IIRC. Maybe two. And they were born in Japan, yes?

And the pilot's fate is certainly a good reminder of the old rule, "Don't shoot him, you'll only piss him off."

Spindrift
1st September 2010, 06:18 AM
To Lionking it is. Are you Lionking?



Ah yes. Look what those dastardly Japanese made us do! :rolleyes:

The idea that if you don't condone war crimes, it's just because you don't understand how it was back then is malignant nonsense. I do not accept special pleading when it comes to war crimes. If it's a crime for them to do it, it's a crime for us to do it. If they don't get to excuse themselves by pointing the finger at someone else, we don't get to either.

You don't have the moral right to condemn Nazi and Japanese atrocities unless you condemn "your" side's atrocities as well. So will I see you in the "holohoax" threads defending the Nazis? Or are you going to grow up and accept the idea that we have our own share of atrocities to acknowledge, and that downplaying them the way the holocaust deniers downplay Nazi atrocities makes you very similar to them?
Where did I say I condoned the atrocities? I said I understood them. Not the same thing.

I can understand the twisted logic the Nazi's used to justify the extermination of the Jews and others. Doesn't mean I agree with it or even think it rational, but I do understand it.

Americans did commit atrocities, no doubt about it. When are you going to grow up and learn the world is not a simple case of black and white? It's a complex world out there and not everything is a simple dichotomy. During a full scale war for survival it gets even more complex. So while I loathe the fact that the Allies committed atrocities during WWII, I'm glad the Allies won. Now whether or now they could have won without doing that is for revisionists to second guess ad nauseum.

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 06:25 AM
How many? One, IIRC. Maybe two. And they were born in Japan, yes?

And the pilot's fate is certainly a good reminder of the old rule, "Don't shoot him, you'll only piss him off."

Found it. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/misc/niihau.html

kookbreaker
1st September 2010, 06:29 AM
How many? One, IIRC. Maybe two. And they were born in Japan, yes?


Two - a man and his wife (the wife later claimed to be innocent but it is doubtful). But it surprised folks as they had shown no signs of being anti-American suddenly did this.

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 06:37 AM
Two - a man and his wife (the wife later claimed to be innocent but it is doubtful). But it surprised folks as they had shown no signs of being anti-American suddenly did this.

Read the link above your post.

Loss Leader
1st September 2010, 06:44 AM
So were there strategic military reasons for internment and calling for extermination of Japanese, or was it purely racist?


I don't think anybody can look at the propaganda cartoons and posters (including those by Dr. Seuss) and conclude that racism wasn't deeply ingrained in the American psyche.

Including this one. (http://www.authentichistory.com/1939-1945/2-homefront/3-anti-jap/Ashtray-Jam_Your_Cigarette_Butts_On_This_Rat.html)

Loss Leader
1st September 2010, 06:52 AM
they didn't round up all the Japanese.



And they certainly didn't round up the ones who actually served (http://www.asianweek.com/2008/01/19/remembering-japanese-american-wwii-veterans/) in WWII.

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 06:55 AM
And they certainly didn't round up the ones who actually served (http://www.asianweek.com/2008/01/19/remembering-japanese-american-wwii-veterans/) in WWII.

True, but they did recruit some of them from the camps.

Spindrift
1st September 2010, 07:04 AM
And they certainly didn't round up the ones who actually served (http://www.asianweek.com/2008/01/19/remembering-japanese-american-wwii-veterans/) in WWII.

Some of them they did. And then they let them out to serve.

patchbunny
1st September 2010, 08:04 AM
So were there strategic military reasons for internment and calling for extermination of Japanese, or was it purely racist?

Wasn't just the US -- Canada interned those of Japanese ancestry, too, and set about deporting them after the war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Canadian_internment).

TraneWreck
1st September 2010, 08:07 AM
Hmm, US racism during WWII? Seems like the direct route is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

Still the law of the land during WWII.

dudalb
1st September 2010, 11:31 AM
To Lionking it is. Are you Lionking?



Ah yes. Look what those dastardly Japanese made us do! :rolleyes:

The idea that if you don't condone war crimes, it's just because you don't understand how it was back then is malignant nonsense. I do not accept special pleading when it comes to war crimes. If it's a crime for them to do it, it's a crime for us to do it. If they don't get to excuse themselves by pointing the finger at someone else, we don't get to either.

You don't have the moral right to condemn Nazi and Japanese atrocities unless you condemn "your" side's atrocities as well. So will I see you in the "holohoax" threads defending the Nazis? Or are you going to grow up and accept the idea that we have our own share of atrocities to acknowledge, and that downplaying them the way the holocaust deniers downplay Nazi atrocities makes you very similar to them?

Moral Equivilency much?

lionking
1st September 2010, 12:21 PM
To Lionking it is. Are you Lionking?

For Christ's sake, I knew about internment. I'm asking for opinions about the reasons. But if you get off on these sort of personal attacks, good for you........

Cainkane1
1st September 2010, 12:49 PM
Firstly, anyone who knows my posting history understands I'm not a US basher, quite the opposite in fact. This thread has no hidden agenda.

I was reading the review of a new book called "Moral Combat: A History of World War II" by Michael Burleigh, which I think I will purchase. While the book rightly covers the atrocities of the Nazis and Japanese, it doesn't spare the allies, particularly the US. A couple of passages in the review:

Interning Americans of japanese descent was very wrong. The japanese Americans who did serve in the US military did an exemplary job.

And:



So were there strategic military reasons for internment and calling for extermination of Japanese, or was it purely racist?
The wipe out all of the japs is misunderstood. japanese soldiers usually didn't surrender whereas germans and italian soldiers often did. It was necessary to kill all of the japanese except the few who actually did give up because if they weren't they would try to kill you.

Towards the end of the war japanese soldiers did start surrendering and these prisoners weren't killed.

Corsair 115
1st September 2010, 02:26 PM
Ah yes. Look what those dastardly Japanese made us do! :rolleyes:



It's pretty much standard operating procedure to fight the enemy in the same way your enemy fights you. One may not like it but that's how it usually ends up. If your enemy is not extending mercy to you, you are not likely to be extending mercy to them.

If you were a Marine and just saw your best buddy killed by a Japanese soldier who acted like he was surrendering but as he raised his arms a primed grenade fell out, do you think you'd take the same chance again with the next Japanese soldier who acts like he's surrendering? I doubt it. Most likely you'd play it safe and simply shoot him dead.

When the accepted 'rules' of war aren't followed by one side, it's much harder to get the soldiers of the other side to follow them. It's brutal practicality at the soldier's level: why should we play fair if the other side isn't?

Kevin_Lowe
1st September 2010, 03:07 PM
The wipe out all of the japs is misunderstood. japanese soldiers usually didn't surrender whereas germans and italian soldiers often did. It was necessary to kill all of the japanese except the few who actually did give up because if they weren't they would try to kill you.

Towards the end of the war japanese soldiers did start surrendering and these prisoners weren't killed.

I think you've got your causes mixed up there. According to the wikipedia article I linked earlier, the problem wasn't that Japanese soldiers weren't surrendering, it was that US and Australian troops were killing them regardless, and it took substantial effort to get them to bring in enough prisoners to interrogate.

I'm not sure this makes us morally superior to the Japanese who took prisoners and then used them as slave labour. At least they actually took prisoners in the first place, and many of those prisoners survived the war.

But, you know, Spindrift understands. You see it's complex. "Revisionists" can "second guess" such atrocities, but the ends justify the means, even if the means are war crimes. After all, can you be absolutely sure that the Allies could have won without killing soldiers who had surrendered? If not, you can't say it wasn't excusable. :rolleyes:

Spindrift, if you don't see that you are using exactly the same excuses that all defenders or war crimes use, there's nothing I can do to help you.

Spindrift
1st September 2010, 04:11 PM
I think you've got your causes mixed up there. According to the wikipedia article I linked earlier, the problem wasn't that Japanese soldiers weren't surrendering, it was that US and Australian troops were killing them regardless, and it took substantial effort to get them to bring in enough prisoners to interrogate.

I suggest you do some other research than wikipedia.


I'm not sure this makes us morally superior to the Japanese who took prisoners and then used them as slave labour. At least they actually took prisoners in the first place, and many of those prisoners survived the war.

The Japanese slaughtered many who tried to surrender. They slaughtered thousands on the Bataan Death March. Look that up on wikipedia.



But, you know, Spindrift understands. You see it's complex. "Revisionists" can "second guess" such atrocities, but the ends justify the means, even if the means are war crimes. After all, can you be absolutely sure that the Allies could have won without killing soldiers who had surrendered? If not, you can't say it wasn't excusable. :rolleyes:

Where did I say it was excusable? I said I understand, I didn't say anything about excusing it.

I cannot be sure if the Allies could have won anyway. Neither can you be sure that they would have won if they didn't.



Spindrift, if you don't see that you are using exactly the same excuses that all defenders or war crimes use, there's nothing I can do to help you.

I really don't need your help. You on the other hand do need help with reading comprehension.

Captain_Swoop
1st September 2010, 04:16 PM
It was common for surrendering Japanese soldiers to set off a grenade or shoot or try to stab the soldiers they were surrendering to. It was an accepted tactic. Why take the chance the second or third time? I had a Great Uncle who served in Burma. His company didn't try to take any prisoners after the first few weeks in the jungle. It was kill or be killed, a lot of it face to face with Bayonet and Machete.

dudalb
1st September 2010, 04:38 PM
Fact is, Japanese Soldiers were much less prone to surrender then almost every other combatant in World War 2. Read about the Island fighting,where they often fought to almost the last man.
General Slim, the British Commander in Burma, stated after the war that although a lot of people talkes about fighting to the last man and the last bullet, the Japanese were the only nation that did it on a large scale.

Captain_Swoop
1st September 2010, 05:02 PM
They even used WW1 style bayonet charges across open ground into machine gubs "Banzai" In Burma they would dig a hole in the road, a soldier would crouch in the hole with a satchel charge, it would be covered over and disguised. When an allied vehicle drove over the soldier would detonate the charge.
Another tactic was to jump onto a tank and then detonate a charge or run at it with a charge on the end of a bamboo pole. Cages were built over the turrets of some Commonwealth tanks operating in close jungle to stop suicide attacks from getting their charges against hatches or weak hull tops.
Indian troops devised special 'tank guard' tactics to protect and escort armour against suicide attacks.

dudalb
1st September 2010, 05:21 PM
They even used WW1 style bayonet charges across open ground into machine gubs "Banzai" In Burma they would dig a hole in the road, a soldier would crouch in the hole with a satchel charge, it would be covered over and disguised. When an allied vehicle drove over the soldier would detonate the charge.
Another tactic was to jump onto a tank and then detonate a charge or run at it with a charge on the end of a bamboo pole. Cages were built over the turrets of some Commonwealth tanks operating in close jungle to stop suicide attacks from getting their charges against hatches or weak hull tops.
Indian troops devised special 'tank guard' tactics to protect and escort armour against suicide attacks.

And of course there is "The Divine Wind", the most famous of all the Japanese Suicide tactics ........

Captain_Swoop
1st September 2010, 05:26 PM
To see why there were no prisoners taken read up on the Battle of Kohima "Stalingrad of the East"

It lasted 64 days in all and saw some of the most intense hand to hand fighting of the war when the Garrison was besieged by 14,000 Japanese troops for a fortnight 'Battle of the tennis Court'.
When relief got through the Perimeter was down to less than 600 yards. The Japanese made wild assaults of suicidal bravery into amchine gun fire and desperate hand to hand fighting with bayonets.

From the Regimental History of the 4th Royal West kents.

on the 19th April the 2nd British Division finally managed to batter their way through to their trapped brothers. They were confronted by the exhausted remains of the garrison who were described as 'filthy, bearded, bedraggled scarecrows'.
They were also horrified by the desolation of Kohima Ridge. 'The stench of festering corpses... the earth ploughed by shell-fire... human remains lay rotting as the battle raged over them... flies swarmed everywhere and multiplied with incredible speed... Men retched as they dug in... the stink hung in the air and permeated clothes and hair.

There were no prisoners taken by either side. Burma is largely forgotten in the popular histories of WW2.

Matthew Ellard
1st September 2010, 05:39 PM
To see why there were no prisoners taken read up on the Battle of Kohima "Stalingrad of the East"

Burma is largely forgotten in the popular histories of WW2.

I just read about this. It was "full on"

Kevin_Lowe
1st September 2010, 05:55 PM
I suggest you do some other research than wikipedia.

The Japanese slaughtered many who tried to surrender. They slaughtered thousands on the Bataan Death March. Look that up on wikipedia.

Yet overall they were more civilised in their treatment of surrendered Allied troops than the Allied troops were of surrendered Japanese troops. You keep glossing over that.


Where did I say it was excusable? I said I understand, I didn't say anything about excusing it.

I cannot be sure if the Allies could have won anyway. Neither can you be sure that they would have won if they didn't.

Make up your mind. Either you're trying to justify these acts or you are not. Trying to justify them out of one side of your mouth while condemning them out of the other doesn't work. That's not being "complex", it's being self-contradictory. Either these acts and the people who carried them out should be condemned or they should not.

I realise this is news to you, but the whole reason we have war crimes as a concept in the first place is because it is strategically or tactically advantageous to commit war crimes. The whole point is that civilised people have agreed to eschew these acts even though we might lose troops or even a war as a result. If you think that wanting to win a war justifies war crimes you've failed to grasp the idea at all.

The fact that once the army reined in its troops and forced them to take prisoners the capture rate rose from 1:100 to 1:7 shows clearly that the problem was primarily with the behaviour of front-line soldiers, not with the behaviour of the surrendered Japanese. If Japanese were really all suicidal zealots using surrender as a trick then the capture rate would not have changed at all when policy changed.

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 05:58 PM
There were times when it was not possible for me to take prisoners. It happens.

Kevin_Lowe
1st September 2010, 06:14 PM
There were times when it was not possible for me to take prisoners. It happens.

Hang on, I'm getting a ping from my Internet Tough Guy (http://www.google.com.au/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=internet%20tough%20guy&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1609&bih=918) detector. I guess it must be on the fritz. I sure can't see anything going on here that would set it off.

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 06:39 PM
Hang on, I'm getting a ping from my Internet Tough Guy (http://www.google.com.au/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=internet%20tough%20guy&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1609&bih=918) detector. I guess it must be on the fritz. I sure can't see anything going on here that would set it off.

I am retired Navy, '69-'89.

Spindrift
1st September 2010, 06:40 PM
Yet overall they were more civilised in their treatment of surrendered Allied troops than the Allied troops were of surrendered Japanese troops. You keep glossing over that.

That is patently false. Have you read any accounts of Japanese treatment of prisoners? They thought that soldiers who surrendered were cowards and beneath contempt and treated them accordingly.

You still haven't addressed the Bataan Death March and the thousands of prisoners killed by their Japanese captors.


Make up your mind. Either you're trying to justify these acts or you are not. Trying to justify them out of one side of your mouth while condemning them out of the other doesn't work. That's not being "complex", it's being self-contradictory. Either these acts and the people who carried them out should be condemned or they should not.

I never tried to justify these acts. Show me when I tried to justify them. Again with the poor reading comprehension.


I realise this is news to you, but the whole reason we have war crimes as a concept in the first place is because it is strategically or tactically advantageous to commit war crimes. The whole point is that civilised people have agreed to eschew these acts even though we might lose troops or even a war as a result. If you think that wanting to win a war justifies war crimes you've failed to grasp the idea at all.

Wrong. We have war crimes to punish the losers. It's not fair but that's reality. To help you with your comprehension please note I'm not endorsing that, but just stating what is, not what I want it to be.


The fact that once the army reined in its troops and forced them to take prisoners the capture rate rose from 1:100 to 1:7 shows clearly that the problem was primarily with the behaviour of front-line soldiers, not with the behaviour of the surrendered Japanese. If Japanese were really all suicidal zealots using surrender as a trick then the capture rate would not have changed at all when policy changed.
Where do those statistics come from? Can you provide a source?

Perhaps all the true Japanese suicidal zealots had already been killed by then.

Thunder
1st September 2010, 06:57 PM
err....um...how many Japanese-Americans died of disease, starvation, or over-work, in the internment camps?

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 07:03 PM
Perhaps all the true Japanese suicidal zealots had already been killed by then.

I think Costello makes that point as well. Cream-of-the-crop troops already wasted, draftees left, for the most part. They lacked the "spirit of Yamato" or they would have volunteered. Sledge noted surrenders became more frequent as the war wore along. They were also less likely to make "banzai" charges.

Corsair 115
1st September 2010, 09:34 PM
There were times when it was not possible for me to take prisoners. It happens. Hang on, I'm getting a ping from my Internet Tough Guy (http://www.google.com.au/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=internet%20tough%20guy&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1609&bih=918) detector. I guess it must be on the fritz. I sure can't see anything going on here that would set it off.


Gawdzilla is correct. Prisoners are rarely taken individually during a pitched battle. Most surrenders happen en masse after the main battle when a unit is surrounded, cut off from its logistical support, and unable to effect a breakout back to its own lines. In such situations the only options are surrender or be destroyed.

dudalb
1st September 2010, 10:06 PM
I am retired Navy, '69-'89.

Kevin dislikes the military quite a bit. You might be better off as a "Internet Tough Guy".

Damien Evans
1st September 2010, 10:14 PM
Yet overall they were more civilised in their treatment of surrendered Allied troops than the Allied troops were of surrendered Japanese troops. You keep glossing over that.


That is a disgusting lie.


Compare the conditions at Corowa pre-breakout to those at Changi. And Changi was one of the less uncivilised Japanese POW camps.

Kevin_Lowe
1st September 2010, 10:18 PM
That is a disgusting lie.

Compare the conditions at Corowa pre-breakout to those at Changi. And Changi was one of the less uncivilised Japanese POW camps.

No, you've just failed to read and understand what is going on.

The Allied troops killed Japanese who surrendered.

The Japanese at least didn't kill their prisoners out of hand.

Damien Evans
1st September 2010, 10:38 PM
No, you've just failed to read and understand what is going on.

The Allied troops killed Japanese who surrendered.

The Japanese at least didn't kill their prisoners out of hand.

Yes, they bloody well did.

Accidental Martyr
1st September 2010, 10:40 PM
No, you've just failed to read and understand what is going on.

The Allied troops killed Japanese who surrendered.

The Japanese at least didn't kill their prisoners out of hand.

OK, let me see if I understand this correctly. No Allied prisoners were killed by the Japanese?

Kevin_Lowe
1st September 2010, 10:50 PM
Yes, they bloody well did.

OK, let me see if I understand this correctly. No Allied prisoners were killed by the Japanese?

Both of you go back to remedial reading comprehension.

lionking
1st September 2010, 10:53 PM
Both of you go back to remedial reading comprehension.
Would you like to explain how and why the Japanese killed prisoners "not out of hand"?

Accidental Martyr
1st September 2010, 11:07 PM
Both of you go back to remedial reading comprehension.

There's really no need to be a dick. I simply asked for a clarification of your statement. You really need to adjust your attitude.

Gawdzilla
1st September 2010, 11:27 PM
Kevin dislikes the military quite a bit. You might be better off as a "Internet Tough Guy".

He's doing his own version with that nonsense. His problem, not mine.

bit_pattern
2nd September 2010, 12:45 AM
Oh, and German and Italian aliens were rounded up, it's a persistent myth that they weren't. Not wholesale like it was with the Japanese, but it happened.


Australia interred over 2000 Italian's during the war too

http://www.ozatwar.com/pow/italiansinterned.htm

Damien Evans
2nd September 2010, 12:48 AM
Both of you go back to remedial reading comprehension.

I don't need to. There are plenty of documented examples of Japanese killing prisoners "out of hand" as you put it.

Try reading A Bastard Of A Place: The Australians In Papua sometime.

Captain_Swoop
2nd September 2010, 02:17 AM
Yet overall they were more civilised in their treatment of surrendered Allied troops than the Allied troops were of surrendered Japanese troops. You keep glossing over that.

When a prisoner was taken then the treatment by the allies was far better than the torture,degredation, starvation and murder that the Japanese considered a POW camp.

In the heat of battle when your life is on the line and fighting is close, personal and to the death you don't wait to find out if someone is surrendering or about to kill himself in order to take you with him.
Kill or be killed, that's what war is about.

You don't have a clue. I am glad my service was in the Navy safe on a ship. I don't think I could stand 3 feet away from someone and have to kill him with a bayonet. I would probably hesitate and in that second I would be the one that was dead.

As other posters point out surrenders happen after the battle. In the heat of the moment when its one on one thereisn't time to check or pause to see what an enemies intentions are.

arthwollipot
2nd September 2010, 03:21 AM
I think the point of the story here is this. War is hell. People do some really crappy things during wartime. All people.

Dancing David
2nd September 2010, 05:10 AM
I don't think it's really any surprise that people who may have links to The Enemy are considered security risks during wartime.

Well except for the fact that they did not round german émigrés wholesale. Here in central Illinois we had quite a population of germans who came over in the 20s and 30s. The internment of the Japanese Americans was more about a long standing political racist policy and seizure of property than actual threat.

Then there is the whole issue of the US state department not allowing Jews to emigrate to the US.

Dancing David
2nd September 2010, 05:13 AM
Gawdzilla is correct. Prisoners are rarely taken individually during a pitched battle. Most surrenders happen en masse after the main battle when a unit is surrounded, cut off from its logistical support, and unable to effect a breakout back to its own lines. In such situations the only options are surrender or be destroyed.

This is unfortunately true, summary excution often happens in a battle.

Dancing David
2nd September 2010, 05:14 AM
err....um...how many Japanese-Americans died of disease, starvation, or over-work, in the internment camps?

How many got their property back?

Spindrift
2nd September 2010, 05:24 AM
The Japanese at least didn't kill their prisoners out of hand.

Why are you lying about this?

Please explain what happened on the Bataan Death March if there wasn't killing out of hand by the Japanese? The prisoners threw themselves onto the swords and beheaded themselves?

Gawdzilla
2nd September 2010, 05:26 AM
This is unfortunately true, summary excution often happens in a battle.

"Let he who has no heart for the battle depart."

aggle-rithm
2nd September 2010, 06:00 AM
Well except for the fact that they did not round german émigrés wholesale. Here in central Illinois we had quite a population of germans who came over in the 20s and 30s. The internment of the Japanese Americans was more about a long standing political racist policy and seizure of property than actual threat.


Most of the internment camps were on the west coast. This could be because there were more Japanese-Americans there, but I think it's because the ones living closest to Japan were considered a greater threat because they tended to have closer ties to the homeland.


Then there is the whole issue of the US state department not allowing Jews to emigrate to the US.

For how long? The US is the most Jewish nation on earth.

Dancing David
2nd September 2010, 07:14 AM
Most of the internment camps were on the west coast. This could be because there were more Japanese-Americans there, but I think it's because the ones living closest to Japan were considered a greater threat because they tended to have closer ties to the homeland.



For how long? The US is the most Jewish nation on earth.

That may be but they US government had a history in the 30s and even from occupied France of turning away Jews.

ETA: Other than Israel?

Gawdzilla
2nd September 2010, 07:16 AM
That may be but they US government had a history in the 30s and even from occupied France of turning away Jews.

Voyage of the Damned: The Story of the SS ST. Louis, if I recall the title correctly, is a prime example.

kookbreaker
2nd September 2010, 07:20 AM
I don't need to. There are plenty of documented examples of Japanese killing prisoners "out of hand" as you put it.

Try reading A Bastard Of A Place: The Australians In Papua sometime.

Very often the Japanese went well beyond killing prisoners "out of hand". Some of the stuff done to prisoners made the collecting of ears by some US & Australian troops look like stamp collecting.

TraneWreck
2nd September 2010, 07:31 AM
That may be but they US government had a history in the 30s and even from occupied France of turning away Jews.

ETA: Other than Israel?

Part of the reason Israel exists as it does today is that the United States (as well as all of the European countries) didn't want to eliminate immigration quotas to compensate for all of the Jewish refugees after WWII.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007094

THose quotas applied to all immigrants, but given the uniqueness of the situation, the lack of an immediate response is telling. The specific quotas were established in 1938, and weren't changed until 1944, and not seriously altered until Truman's administration, after the war.

Gawdzilla
2nd September 2010, 07:38 AM
Very often the Japanese went well beyond killing prisoners "out of hand". Some of the stuff done to prisoners made the collecting of ears by some US & Australian troops look like stamp collecting.

IF that was unique to Allied troops you'd have a point.

Ranb
2nd September 2010, 07:41 AM
Ironically, there were Nisei soldiers who fought honorably in the European theater while their families were in internment camps back home.

I remember reading a while back that most of the nisei that fought for the allies in WWII came from Hawaii. I guess few of the mainland residents interned felt like fighting for the sytem that screwed them so bad. If I can find the source, I will post it.

Ranb

Spindrift
2nd September 2010, 07:47 AM
IF that was unique to Allied troops you'd have a point.

That is the point. Kevin is claiming that the Japanese did not kill prisoners out of hand, which is untrue.

kookbreaker
2nd September 2010, 07:51 AM
IF that was unique to Allied troops you'd have a point.

How do you mean? The ear collecting or the Japanese treatment of prisoners (allied troops or otherwise).

Hubert Cumberdale
2nd September 2010, 08:36 AM
Yet overall they were more civilised in their treatment of surrendered Allied troops than the Allied troops were of surrendered Japanese troops. You keep glossing over that.



Thats quite a claim. Do you have something to back it up with apart from this:


The fact that once the army reined in its troops and forced them to take prisoners the capture rate rose from 1:100 to 1:7 shows clearly that the problem was primarily with the behaviour of front-line soldiers, not with the behaviour of the surrendered Japanese.

Which doesnt show anything of the sort. It might show it if everything else had remained constant but things had not remained constant. In fact, lots of things had changed, any one of which could also be the cause of the increase in prisoners taken.

Gawdzilla
2nd September 2010, 08:49 AM
How do you mean? The ear collecting or the Japanese treatment of prisoners (allied troops or otherwise).

Troops on either side did "not nice" things. Either out of pragmatism or anger/revenge/fear. It's only a surprise to those who have not seen the elephant.

aggle-rithm
2nd September 2010, 08:59 AM
Yet overall they were more civilised in their treatment of surrendered Allied troops than the Allied troops were of surrendered Japanese troops.

I can't imagine what the allies could have done that was WORSE than vivisecting conscious prisoners, but, if you say so...

aggle-rithm
2nd September 2010, 09:13 AM
Troops on either side did "not nice" things. Either out of pragmatism or anger/revenge/fear. It's only a surprise to those who have not seen the elephant.

I think it's safe to say that the Japanese prisoners treated their captors much more humanely than their allied counterparts did. I read a story about a prison camp where the allied prisoners were treated with horrendous cruelty by the Japanese commander of the camp. When the war was over, the commander told them the news with a big smile on his face, handing out candy bars as a peace offering. In essence he was saying, "No hard feelings, right?"

Although they were emaciated, the prisoners rushed the camp commander, pushed him into a well, and filled the well to the top with rocks.

Hubert Cumberdale
2nd September 2010, 09:14 AM
Also, I dont think its any suprise that some Americans were racist during WWII.

Racism was quite normal back then in just about every country, the Axis powers were probably worst of all.

It would be a suprise if someone tried to claim there was NO racism in any particular country during WWII.

Captain_Swoop
2nd September 2010, 09:21 AM
I can't imagine what the allies could have done that was WORSE than vivisecting conscious prisoners, but, if you say so...

Or Crucifying them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringer_Edwards

http://www.far-eastern-heroes.org.uk

Captain_Swoop
2nd September 2010, 09:23 AM
Also, I dont think its any suprise that some Americans were racist during WWII.

Racism was quite normal back then in just about every country, the Axis powers were probably worst of all.

It would be a suprise if someone tried to claim there was NO racism in any particular country during WWII.

In a War for national survival you tend not to like the enemy that is trying to destroy your country and way of life.

Gawdzilla
2nd September 2010, 09:30 AM
I think it's safe to say that the Japanese prisoners treated their captors much more humanely than their allied counterparts did.
Ah, the Bataan Death March never occurred in your timeline?

ETA: "16,000 died to build this railroad" does not refer to the Baltimore, Norfolk and Southern Railways.

Hubert Cumberdale
2nd September 2010, 09:49 AM
In a War for national survival you tend not to like the enemy that is trying to destroy your country and way of life.

Indeed, though the degree of chivalry between Empire and Axis forces in the western desert was boggling, in a good way, given that each sides compatriots were trying to drop bombs on each others mum and dad back home.

War certainly is a strange businesses.

I dont think theres any denying though, that the western allies looked at the Japanese in a way they didnt the Germans or Italians.

Perhaps if we'd been less conceited with our own racial superiority at the outset, there would have been less marching to Bataan and building bridges over river Kwais.

Hubert Cumberdale
2nd September 2010, 09:50 AM
Ah, the Bataan Death March never occurred in your timeline?

ETA: "16,000 died to build this railroad" does not refer to the Baltimore, Norfolk and Southern Railways.

I think he meant captives and was being sarcastic.

Wolrab
2nd September 2010, 09:52 AM
This looney toon from the war isn't the least bit racist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjLfyooJQEc

It is wholly and completely racist. And pretty darned funny in places.

Spindrift
2nd September 2010, 09:53 AM
Ah, the Bataan Death March never occurred in your timeline?

ETA: "16,000 died to build this railroad" does not refer to the Baltimore, Norfolk and Southern Railways.

I think you're misreading aggle. Read it again. It took me a couple takes to figure it out.

Hubert Cumberdale
2nd September 2010, 09:58 AM
I think you're misreading aggle. Read it again. It took me a couple takes to figure it out.

*sound of penny dropping*

Damien Evans
2nd September 2010, 09:58 AM
Ah, the Bataan Death March never occurred in your timeline?

ETA: "16,000 died to build this railroad" does not refer to the Baltimore, Norfolk and Southern Railways.

Can you not read? that's the second time on this page you've had a go at someone who was agreeing with you.

aggle-rithm
2nd September 2010, 10:19 AM
I think you're misreading aggle. Read it again. It took me a couple takes to figure it out.

It's my fault. I should have used boldface or all caps or something to emphasize the irony.

Spindrift
2nd September 2010, 10:25 AM
I think he meant captives and was being sarcastic.

He didn't mean captives, he meant captors.

What he was saying was that when the Allies released the Japanese prisoners the Japanese didn't attack their captors because they were treated well.

However Allied prisoners on occasion did attack their Japanese captors because they (the prisoners) weren't treated well.

Aggle - correct me if I'm wrong.

dudalb
2nd September 2010, 10:36 AM
Yet overall they were more civilised in their treatment of surrendered Allied troops than the Allied troops were of surrendered Japanese troops. You keep glossing over that

That is just about the biggest crock of you know what I have seen in some time.
Yes, Allied treatment of Japanese prisoners was often brutal. But NOTHING the allieds did apporached The Bataan Death March, the "Death Railroad" in Burma ,and conditions in Allied POW Camps for Japanese was nothing close to what Japanese POW camps for the Allies were like.
And then there is China,where Japan's record is even worse then it was with the Western Allies.
That is so outrageously false a statement that I don't know if you are just plain ignorant or blinded by ideology or are just being outrageous.

Hubert Cumberdale
2nd September 2010, 10:37 AM
He didn't mean captives, he meant captors.



Yer, I know. I got it rong. D'oh. :o

dudalb
2nd September 2010, 10:38 AM
Indeed, though the degree of chivalry between Empire and Axis forces in the western desert was boggling, in a good way, given that each sides compatriots were trying to drop bombs on each others mum and dad back home.

War certainly is a strange businesses.

I dont think theres any denying though, that the western allies looked at the Japanese in a way they didnt the Germans or Italians.

Perhaps if we'd been less conceited with our own racial superiority at the outset, there would have been less marching to Bataan and building bridges over river Kwais.

Ya gonna try to excuse the Nazi treamtent of the Jews next?

Hubert Cumberdale
2nd September 2010, 10:47 AM
Ya gonna try to excuse the Nazi treamtent of the Jews next?

Excuse me?

Edit - Let me re-phrase that

I very beg your pardon?

Where in my 33 posts on the JREF forums have I ever expressed any sympathy whatsoever for the NAZIs and where have I ever indicated that the jews were to blame for the holocaust in any way shape or form, or indeed expressed any form of anti-semetism of any species?

I thought the JREF forums were for reasoned debate, not for jumping down people's throats and calling them NAZIs for no reason. Maybe I'm wrong?

Gawdzilla
2nd September 2010, 12:12 PM
Sorry if I misread something. Never happened before, of course. http://rationalia.com/z/goodmorning.gif

Corsair 115
2nd September 2010, 12:24 PM
This is unfortunately true, summary excution often happens in a battle.


Quoting from James F. Dunnigan's How to Make War:

Although it is not often written about, prisoners are usually not taken during opposed attacks, especially if individuals or small groups are trying to give up. The attacker doesn't want to spare any troops to guard prisoners, particularly since he needs all the help he can get to complete the attack successfully. And then we have all those troops that are wounded and are in more need of attention than enemy prisoners. This is why defeated defenders attempt to hide or sneak away rather than test the questionable mercies of attacker through surrender. Veteran troops know this, otherwise they wouldn't be veteran.

Gawdzilla
2nd September 2010, 12:51 PM
Quoting from James F. Dunnigan's How to Make War:

"I wonder what bitte!, bitte! means?"

Dancing David
3rd September 2010, 05:05 AM
This looney toon from the war isn't the least bit racist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjLfyooJQEc

It is wholly and completely racist. And pretty darned funny in places.

And it reflects a sad truth, that german POWS could eat in the restaurants of Florida openly but black soldiers and veterans had to be served out a door in the back, if at all.

Cainkane1
3rd September 2010, 05:31 AM
And it reflects a sad truth, that german POWS could eat in the restaurants of Florida openly but black soldiers and veterans had to be served out a door in the back, if at all.
Ouch.

Gawdzilla
3rd September 2010, 05:40 AM
And it reflects a sad truth, that german POWS could eat in the restaurants of Florida openly but black soldiers and veterans had to be served out a door in the back, if at all.

"They sure don't turn away our money, do they?"

aggle-rithm
3rd September 2010, 05:47 AM
Perhaps if we'd been less conceited with our own racial superiority at the outset, there would have been less marching to Bataan and building bridges over river Kwais.

The fact is, BOTH sides were conceited with their own racial superiority, considering their opponent to be beneath them. In neither case was this attitude some sort of retaliation for the attitude of the enemy.

BOTH sides were humbled when they realized they had severely underestimated their opponent's will (and ability) to fight.

Gawdzilla
3rd September 2010, 05:51 AM
The fact is, BOTH sides were conceited with their own racial superiority, considering their opponent to be beneath them. In neither case was this attitude some sort of retaliation for the attitude of the enemy.

BOTH sides were humbled when they realized they had severely underestimated their opponent's will (and ability) to fight.

Actually, if you look at the material supplied to the fighting men you'll see that they didn't underestimate the enemy at all, at least on the US side (that being the material I'm most familiar with.) It would be insane to tell the troops that they're facing a weak and stupid enemy, reality would be very rude to them.

Also, I would avoid implying that "everything the Allies did" was equal to "everything the Axis did".

aggle-rithm
3rd September 2010, 07:03 AM
Actually, if you look at the material supplied to the fighting men you'll see that they didn't underestimate the enemy at all, at least on the US side (that being the material I'm most familiar with.) It would be insane to tell the troops that they're facing a weak and stupid enemy, reality would be very rude to them.


I guess it's more accurate to say that the general public underestimated the Japanese.


Also, I would avoid implying that "everything the Allies did" was equal to "everything the Axis did".

I was not implying that at all, merely countering the notion that Japanese atrocities were somehow justified by, or at least influenced by, our racist attitude towards them. I don't think the Japanese knew or cared what our attitude toward them was.

Gawdzilla
3rd September 2010, 07:06 AM
I guess it's more accurate to say that the general public underestimated the Japanese.
After years of "Mr. Moto" and racial tension in general we had to confirm to the troops that they were, indeed, fighting a serious enemy. The OWI thought a different approach was needed for the home front.



I was not implying that at all, merely countering the notion that Japanese atrocities were somehow justified by, or at least influenced by, our racist attitude towards them. I don't think the Japanese knew or cared what our attitude toward them was.
I knew I should have put that in a separate post. http://rationalia.com/forum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

aggle-rithm
3rd September 2010, 10:33 AM
My dad was part of a program (the ASTP) that trained young men for high-skill positions needed by the army, such as engineering, linguistics, etc. Among the participants was shared a little ditty that was funny, though somewhat racist:

One day I'll go over the ocean
And a dirty old Jap I will see
I will whip out my slide rule and kill him
With the cosine of A minus B

aggle-rithm
3rd September 2010, 10:37 AM
I was thinking about the question of why Japanese-Americans were treated worse than German-Americans, and it occured to me we could find the answer if we discover why it's so much easier today for a Canadian to immigrate to the states than it is for a Mexican.*


*I make this claim with absolutely no supporting evidence, though I bet I'm right.

Corsair 115
3rd September 2010, 01:45 PM
...why it's so much easier today for a Canadian to immigrate to the states than it is for a Mexican.


There are several rationally-based reasons one could offer for such a difference.

Skeptical Greg
3rd September 2010, 04:32 PM
The least of which might be a shorter waiting list ....

Skeptic
4th September 2010, 05:19 AM
OF COURSE the USA during WWII was racist, and for that matter antisemitic and chauvinistic -- to a certain degree. But that is one thing, being genocidal in exterminating all members of the "inferior" races is something else entirely.

Dancing David
4th September 2010, 05:45 AM
How about refusing entry to those who are about to be killed?

Captain_Swoop
4th September 2010, 11:26 AM
How would they know anyone was about to be killed?

Damien Evans
4th September 2010, 05:34 PM
Actually, if you look at the material supplied to the fighting men you'll see that they didn't underestimate the enemy at all, at least on the US side (that being the material I'm most familiar with.) It would be insane to tell the troops that they're facing a weak and stupid enemy, reality would be very rude to them.

Also, I would avoid implying that "everything the Allies did" was equal to "everything the Axis did".

What, like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Blamey#The_.22running_rabbits.22_incident

Gawdzilla
4th September 2010, 05:42 PM
What, like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Blamey#The_.22running_rabbits.22_incident

An impromptu "pep talk"? Interesting read, but WTF?

Damien Evans
5th September 2010, 03:53 AM
An impromptu "pep talk"? Interesting read, but WTF?

It gets worse: The Japanese outnumbered us 6 to 1 and Blamey himself had refused to send re-enforcements, then blamed the frontline troops for the Japanese continuing to advance!

Gawdzilla
5th September 2010, 03:58 AM
It gets worse: The Japanese outnumbered us 6 to 1 and Blamey himself had refused to send re-enforcements, then blamed the frontline troops for the Japanese continuing to advance!

Okay, he was an idiot. However, I was talking about "material supplied" to the troops, that being propaganda items. So I'm not getting a linkage here.

Damien Evans
5th September 2010, 04:09 AM
Okay, he was an idiot. However, I was talking about "material supplied" to the troops, that being propaganda items. So I'm not getting a linkage here.

Oh, he was saying to the troops faces how weak the enemy was. I don't know of any in leaflet form though.

Captain_Swoop
5th September 2010, 04:13 AM
What should he have told them? They were going to face an overhwelming foe that would drive them from the field?
When you are going into a battle you need to think you are the best and your enemy is going to be defeated right up until the moment they beat you otherwise you would never go back aboard the ship.

Gawdzilla
5th September 2010, 04:17 AM
What should he have told them? They were going to face an overhwelming foe that would drive them from the field?
When you are going into a battle you need to think you are the best and your enemy is going to be defeated right up until the moment they beat you otherwise you would never go back aboard the ship.

You tell your troops the truth: The enemy is skilled, resolute and resourceful. You get them ready for a tough fight, to the death if need be. Telling them the enemy is a push-over is an invitation to failure. The idiot we've been talking about was, I think, blaming the troops for his own failures.

KodeBlue
5th September 2010, 04:22 AM
And it reflects a sad truth, that german POWS could eat in the restaurants of Florida openly but black soldiers and veterans had to be served out a door in the back, if at all.

speaking of eating...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Cannibalism

Dancing David
5th September 2010, 07:17 AM
How would they know anyone was about to be killed?

Read Mein Kampf listen to Hitler's speeches. Consider what the Reich had done already.

Hey what happened to all those developmentally disabled and mentally ill people, what happened to all those commies, what happened to Ernst Rohm, what was Kristalnacht all about?

Dancing David
5th September 2010, 07:19 AM
speaking of eating...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Cannibalism

Gee, do even know how to make a segue? I suppose that Japanese war crimes justify the lynching of black people.

Wow.

MaGZ
5th September 2010, 10:44 AM
Firstly, anyone who knows my posting history understands I'm not a US basher, quite the opposite in fact. This thread has no hidden agenda.

I was reading the review of a new book called "Moral Combat: A History of World War II" by Michael Burleigh, which I think I will purchase. While the book rightly covers the atrocities of the Nazis and Japanese, it doesn't spare the allies, particularly the US. A couple of passages in the review:



And:



So were there strategic military reasons for internment and calling for extermination of Japanese, or was it purely racist?

Leaders of the German American Bund were rounded up and held in American concentration camps as late as July 1948 on Ellis Island within the shadow of the Statue of Liberty.

MaGZ
5th September 2010, 10:47 AM
I don't think it's really any surprise that people who may have links to The Enemy are considered security risks during wartime.

Are you talking about the Jews who called for a boycott of NS Germany?

MaGZ
5th September 2010, 10:57 AM
The fear was that while Germany's ability to invade the US was limited Japan was considered a threat - if not for actual invasion than for making a hash of things. That Niihau incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_Incident) where a downed Japanese pilot from Pearl Harbor convinced some Japanese Americans to go on a killing spree was probably worse than Pearl Harbor itself.

On the East Coast, the biggest threat was the American Bund. That was being watched like a hawk but was already reduced to a pale shadow.

A large number on non-German Americans joined the Silver Shirts: 15,000 members in 1934. The Bund had 8500 members 1937-1938.

MaGZ
5th September 2010, 11:06 AM
Australia interred over 2000 Italian's during the war too

http://www.ozatwar.com/pow/italiansinterned.htm

Sixteen members of the Australia First Movement were also held in internment camps during the war.

MaGZ
5th September 2010, 11:12 AM
Most of the internment camps were on the west coast. This could be because there were more Japanese-Americans there, but I think it's because the ones living closest to Japan were considered a greater threat because they tended to have closer ties to the homeland.



American internment camps were all over the country.

http://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Datei:BekannteUS-Zivilinterniertenlager.jpg

MaGZ
5th September 2010, 11:25 AM
Excuse me?

Edit - Let me re-phrase that

I very beg your pardon?

Where in my 33 posts on the JREF forums have I ever expressed any sympathy whatsoever for the NAZIs and where have I ever indicated that the jews were to blame for the holocaust in any way shape or form, or indeed expressed any form of anti-semetism of any species?

I thought the JREF forums were for reasoned debate, not for jumping down people's throats and calling them NAZIs for no reason. Maybe I'm wrong?

The Jews are sacrosanct on this forum.

MaGZ
5th September 2010, 11:29 AM
How come no one is answering my posts?

Captain_Swoop
5th September 2010, 11:49 AM
well everyone apart from me has you on ignore maybe?

Captain_Swoop
5th September 2010, 11:51 AM
You tell your troops the truth: The enemy is skilled, resolute and resourceful. You get them ready for a tough fight, to the death if need be. Telling them the enemy is a push-over is an invitation to failure. The idiot we've been talking about was, I think, blaming the troops for his own failures.

I didn't say you downplay your enemies abilities but you have to think you are better. I know my ship was the match of anything the Sovier=ts had on or below the surface. When we were in the South Atlantic I knew we had the upper hand on any naval units the Argentinians could put up against us including the Type 42s we sold them.

Skeptical Greg
5th September 2010, 12:10 PM
How come no one is answering my posts?
What was your question ?

kookbreaker
5th September 2010, 01:19 PM
Okay, he was an idiot. However, I was talking about "material supplied" to the troops, that being propaganda items. So I'm not getting a linkage here.

I had heard of this, but I thought it was MacArthur who had said it.

GrouchoMarxist
5th September 2010, 01:49 PM
Leaders of the German American Bund were rounded up and held in American concentration camps as late as July 1948 on Ellis Island within the shadow of the Statue of Liberty.

At least they had shade.

Gawdzilla
5th September 2010, 02:03 PM
well everyone apart from me has you on ignore maybe?

I don't, I need the laughs.

Gawdzilla
5th September 2010, 02:12 PM
I didn't say you downplay your enemies abilities but you have to think you are better. I know my ship was the match of anything the Sovier=ts had on or below the surface. When we were in the South Atlantic I knew we had the upper hand on any naval units the Argentinians could put up against us including the Type 42s we sold them.

Confidence in your own skills, respect for the enemy. Not mutually exclusive.

And congrats for liberating the Malvinas. ;)

aggle-rithm
5th September 2010, 02:33 PM
American internment camps were all over the country.

http://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Datei:BekannteUS-Zivilinterniertenlager.jpg

I was recently at the Pacific War Museum in Fredricksburg, and it is there that I learned that most of the internees were in California. There was a map of internment camps in Texas, and they were very sparsely populated.

aggle-rithm
5th September 2010, 02:35 PM
Leaders of the German American Bund were rounded up and held in American concentration camps as late as July 1948 on Ellis Island within the shadow of the Statue of Liberty.

Sssh! Do you hear that?

It's the world's smallest violin, and it's playing just for leaders of the German American Bund.

arthwollipot
6th September 2010, 02:43 AM
Are you talking about the Jews who called for a boycott of NS Germany?Not specifically, no.

How come no one is answering my posts?Because you made seven posts within the space of half an hour, at a time when I was in bed.

KodeBlue
6th September 2010, 05:41 AM
Gee, do even know how to make a segue? I suppose that Japanese war crimes justify the lynching of black people.

Wow.

No, and frankly I don't see any connection. Some posters here have stated that the Japanese treated American POW's humanley. I don't think slaughtering prisoners to use as a food source is humane, IMHO.

Spindrift
7th September 2010, 07:01 AM
How come no one is answering my posts?

The jews won't let us.

Oh, wait. Now I'm in trouble.

dudalb
9th September 2010, 11:59 AM
How come no one is answering my posts?

In hopes you will go away and darken JREF's doorway no more.

quadraginta
12th September 2010, 11:54 AM
I was recently at the Pacific War Museum in Fredricksburg, and it is there that I learned that most of the internees were in California. There was a map of internment camps in Texas, and they were very sparsely populated.


Most of the Japanese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment) internment camps were in California (or points west.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Map_of_World_War_II_Japanese_American_internment_c amps.png/400px-Map_of_World_War_II_Japanese_American_internment_c amps.png

Of 127,000 Japanese Americans living in the continental United States at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, 112,000 resided on the West Coast.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#cite_note-17) About 80,000 were nisei (Japanese born in the United States and holding American citizenship) and sansei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sansei) (the sons or daughters of nisei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisei)). The rest were issei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issei) (immigrants born in Japan who were ineligible for U.S. citizenship)


the forced relocation and internment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment) by the United States government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government) in 1942 of approximately 110,000 Japanese Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American) and Japanese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_people) residing along the Pacific coast of the United States


The internment of Japanese Americans was applied unequally throughout the United States. Japanese Americans residing on the West Coast of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_of_the_United_States) were all interned, whereas in Hawaii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii), where more than 150,000 Japanese Americans composed nearly a third of that territory's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territory_of_Hawaii) population, 1,200[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#cite_note-2) to 1,800 Japanese Americans were interned.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#cite_note-3) Of those interned, 62% were American citizens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_the_United_States).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#cite_note-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#cite_note-trumanlib_1948-5)


OTOH, most of the German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_internment) internment camps were on the East Coast.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/USA600dpi.jpg/400px-USA600dpi.jpg

the United States government detained and interned over 11,000 Germans and German Americans at the start of World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II).


Not quite so many Italians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_American_internment). Can't find a map for camps.

I thought this quote was interesting.

In January 1942, all enemy aliens were required to register at local post offices around the country. As enemy aliens they were required to be fingerprinted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint), photographed, and carry their photo-bearing "enemy alien registration cards" at all times. Attorney General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General) Francis M. Biddle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Biddle) assured enemy aliens that they would not be discriminated against if they were loyal. He cited Department of Justice figures: Of the 1,100,000 (sic) enemy aliens in the United States, 92,000 were Japanese, 315,000 were German, and 695,000 were Italian.



(Note that the "enemy aliens" being referred to here are not the same statistic as those selected for internment, but it does provide an approximate idea of the relative populations of the ethnic groups involved.)

Virulent racial prejudice against Asians of any stripe had been rampant in the U.S. for well over a century before the war, and most particularly against the Japanese on the West Coast for at least half a century. Segregation laws were being passed to keep them out of "white" schools as far back as 1906. When Congress passed the Cable Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_Act) in 1922, an act which reversed a previously standing policy that removed a woman's U.S. citizenship if she married an alien national, the only group which was not relieved were women who married Asian foreign nationals.

The example of blacks being denied service in restaurants in the South was practiced on the West Coast against Asians as well. I seem to recall some incidents prior to the war where this proved embarrassing to Americans escorting senior Japanese diplomats in San Fransisco or L.A.

It could be argued with some merit that the Japanese certainty that war with the U.S. was inevitable was fueled in no small part by this widespread, highly visible racial hatred.

Gawdzilla
12th September 2010, 02:00 PM
My mother lived right next to the Jerome facility in Missouri during the war. She traded fruit from some beautiful hand-carved items. A peck of apples got her an entire wooden flatware set. With metal scarce this was a prize.

aggle-rithm
13th September 2010, 05:25 AM
Most of the Japanese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment) internment camps were in California (or points west.)
.

Yes, that's what I meant.

MaGZ
4th November 2012, 07:05 PM
I don't think it's really any surprise that people who may have links to The Enemy are considered security risks during wartime.

During WWII the US had a political prisoner battalion made-up of American citizens who were considered a security risk.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/1800_Engineer_General_Service_Battalion

joesixpack
4th November 2012, 07:43 PM
Leaders of the German American Bund were rounded up and held in American concentration camps as late as July 1948 on Ellis Island within the shadow of the Statue of Liberty.

Sweet! Did they gas any of them? How many of them starved or were worked to death? None? What are you complaining about then?

Oh, and I should add that it would be quite impossible for the shadow of the statue of liberty to fall across Ellis unless the earth's axis were to drastically change.

Gawdzilla
5th November 2012, 05:49 AM
Sweet! Did they gas any of them? How many of them starved or were worked to death? None? What are you complaining about then?
Some Nazis were executed here during WWII. There's a tale in itself.

Oh, and I should add that it would be quite impossible for the shadow of the statue of liberty to fall across Ellis unless the earth's axis were to drastically change.
It's just a figure of speech.

BStrong
5th November 2012, 06:19 AM
Germans and Italians weren't interned at anywhere near the number as the Japanese, but individuals from the German and Italian communities did face all sorts of difficulties.

A local example, from Wiki:

Giuseppe and Rosalia DiMaggio were among the thousands of German, Japanese and Italian immigrants classified as "enemy aliens" by the government after Pearl Harbor was bombed by Japan. They carried photo ID booklets at all times, and were not allowed to travel outside a five-mile radius from their home without a permit. Giuseppe was barred from the San Francisco Bay, where he had fished for decades, and his boat was seized. Rosalia became an American citizen in 1944, followed by Giuseppe in 1945.[29]

Joe Dimaggio's parents.

My father and uncle had a running argument about Japanese internment - My father believed it was unconstitutional, my uncle believed that it was a proper response - My uncle had joined the Marines in the 30's and fought in WWII in the pacific, and later in Korea before he retired from the Corps, My father fought in Korea.

The stories of atrocities are true, and there plenty on all sides, in both theatres.

Border Reiver
5th November 2012, 06:30 AM
WWI was an interesting time in Canada and the US when it came to the conflicts.

As is well known, both countries were immigrant nations, and there was some concern that some of the more recent immigrants from the now enemy nations would give their loyalty to the old country rather than the new. This was compounded by both Germany, and Austria-Hungary sending letters and telegrams to some recent immigrants recalling them to the colours when their reserve units were activated in the month leading up to the start of the war.

Craig B
5th November 2012, 10:39 AM
WWI ... This was compounded by both Germany, and Austria-Hungary sending letters and telegrams to some recent immigrants recalling them to the colours when their reserve units were activated in the month leading up to the start of the war. How many of them were mad enough to respond to the call?

Border Reiver
5th November 2012, 01:03 PM
Not many. There is anecdotal evidence for less than twenty. Most were extremely new immigrants and were unemployed prior to leaving.

We did intern about 8,600 so-called enemy aliens, mostly Ukrainians/Galacians until about 1916, when the labour shortage caused the gov't to let them go, provided they took a loyalty oath and reported to police ... Until 1920 in some cases.

catsmate1
6th November 2012, 03:37 AM
During WWII the US had a political prisoner battalion made-up of American citizens who were considered a security risk.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/1800_Engineer_General_Service_Battalion

For those looking for an account of the 1800th not filtered by the Hitler huggers try this page (http://www.javadc.org/1800th_story%20Shimo.htm) or this one (http://encyclopedia.densho.org/1800th%20Engineer%20General%20Service%20Battalion/).