American racism during WWII?

[lionking]

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:

Quote:

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

And:

Quote:

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]

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

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 Until recently it was classified secret and could not be published.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]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

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]

Originally Posted by lionking

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...t#World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian...can_internment

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...t#World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian...can_internment

Ta-Da.


Thanks.

[arthwollipot]

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]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

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]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

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]

Originally Posted by lionking

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]

Probably more significant was the Australian and American habit of murdering captured or surrendered Japanese soldiers and taking trophies from Japanese dead.

Wikipedia link.

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]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

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]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

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]

Originally Posted by lionking

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]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

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]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

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]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

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]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

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]

Pearl Harbor probably factored into it some, as well. Hard to know how much.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

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_R...al_Combat_Team
The most decorated Regiment in US Armed forces history

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Probably more significant was the Australian and American habit of murdering captured or surrendered Japanese soldiers and taking trophies from Japanese dead.

Wikipedia link.

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]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

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]

Originally Posted by lionking

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

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]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

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 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]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

It's not news.

To Lionking it is. Are you Lionking?

Quote:

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!

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]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

That 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]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

To Lionking it is. Are you Lionking?



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

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]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

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]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

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]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by lionking

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.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

they didn't round up all the Japanese.

And they certainly didn't round up the ones who actually served in WWII.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

And they certainly didn't round up the ones who actually served in WWII.

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

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

And they certainly didn't round up the ones who actually served in WWII.

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

[patchbunny]

Originally Posted by lionking

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.

[TraneWreck]

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]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

To Lionking it is. Are you Lionking?



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

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]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

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]

Originally Posted by lionking

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.