A 1942 Bowery Boys film reveals US attitude toward Asians in WW2

It makes a certain psychological sense to dehumanize your enemy during wartime, but it doesn't make any sense to dehumanize your own citizens. And, of course, the weak-minded sometimes have a very hard time letting go of this dehumanization long after the war has ended.

The sentiments you criticize serve a very understandable and valid purpose.

Feelings run deep and that's just human nature.

Those who might expect to aggress against America and hope we will immediately love them afterwards need to think twice.

There is a place for residual anger.

Especially when we were the victims of a sneak attack which almost completely crippled our Pacific Fleet.

No one is interested in "dehumanizing" loyal Americans.

But if those who live in America (whether American born or not) are working for the enemy it is common sense to separate those enemies from the loyalists.

That is the problem we have with Muslims and why we should limit the numbers of Muslims we will allow to enter the USA via the legal immigration route.

The more Muslims who come here, the more Mosques they wioll need.

And they will yell and protest and bring legal charges against those who try to surveil the bad Muslims and their activities in these Mosques.
 

A student did a study one time of music during WWII and how the music was like a history of the war. From the early ridicule of the enemy to our make-believe heroes and what we were going to do to the stupid enemy. Then to the loneliness of the GI and the girl and family he had left and would she be true. And on to the real heroes and finally what would life be like after the war.

and just what did they do to that stupid enemy ???
 
So, Mojo2? That's how America thinks about the traitorous far right today.

In fact, my dad and step dad, who both fought the Japanese as infantry and marine riflemen in WWII, would tell you the military training films were far worse.

Most people have a very difficult time in killing people.

Some of us in the military later adapted without any problems, others not so much.

The film is a window into how Americans felt.

During WWII the problem of soldiers being emotionally unable to kill the enemy in combat was addressed by having marksmanship training be conducted against man sized and man shaped targets rather than the stereotypical black and white rings and circular bulls eyes which had previously been employed for battle rifle training.

Once the recruit and infantry training made the soldiers realize they are going to be aiming and pulling the trigger on what looked like real men, the issue was at least somewhat resolved.

A positive step indeed.

Still, some units reported upwards of 3 and 4 out of 10 firing their weapons in the air rather than at the enemy.

But, yes, as a youngster, I can remember real dislike against Japanese citizens in our community almost twenty years after the war.
 
America has always been a dystopian living hell for minorities, which is why the news has always been full of stories about all the minorities fleeing across the oceans to freedom on inner tubes and makeshift rafts, and pics of all the bodies of those who drowned in the attempt that are constantly washing up on all of our beaches.

All the rest of the planet are happy tolerant hobbits who are wonderful examples of diversity appreciation and tolerance for others different from them. They have many many Teachable Moments for us savage Americans to learn from.
 
So, Mojo2? That's how America thinks about the traitorous far right today.

In fact, my dad and step dad, who both fought the Japanese as infantry and marine riflemen in WWII, would tell you the military training films were far worse.

Most people have a very difficult time in killing people.

Some of us in the military later adapted without any problems, others not so much.

The film is a window into how Americans felt.

During WWII the problem of soldiers being emotionally unable to kill the enemy in combat was addressed by having marksmanship training be conducted against man sized and man shaped targets rather than the stereotypical black and white rings and circular bulls eyes which had previously been employed for battle rifle training.

Once the recruit and infantry training made the soldiers realize they are going to be aiming and pulling the trigger on what looked like real men, the issue was at least somewhat resolved.

A positive step indeed.

Still, some units reported upwards of 3 and 4 out of 10 firing their weapons in the air rather than at the enemy.

But, yes, as a youngster, I can remember real dislike against Japanese citizens in our community almost twenty years after the war.

In the pacific much of our firing was done at night. The nights belonged to the Japanese and days to Americans. With replacements one of the problems was learning night fire- discipline, "Do not fire at noises. or plants that move etc." With every third man on watch getting enough sleep was difficult, one shot and the entire perimeter would be awake and some would take a shot at that imagined Japanese soldier that had been creeping toward their slit trench. What I saw was the individual rifle fire was not that effective, it was the three machine guns that were the biggies, and always placed strategically. Bless machine-gunners.
 
It makes a certain psychological sense to dehumanize your enemy during wartime, but it doesn't make any sense to dehumanize your own citizens. And, of course, the weak-minded sometimes have a very hard time letting go of this dehumanization long after the war has ended.

The sentiments you criticize serve a very understandable and valid purpose.

Feelings run deep and that's just human nature.
.


You quoted my words but you didn't read them.
 
No one is interested in "dehumanizing" loyal Americans..



That's exactly what happened, with that scumbag FDR leading the way and filling his concentration camps with "loyal Americans."
 
In the pacific much of our firing was done at night. The nights belonged to the Japanese and days to Americans. With replacements one of the problems was learning night fire- discipline, "Do not fire at noises. or plants that move etc." With every third man on watch getting enough sleep was difficult, one shot and the entire perimeter would be awake and some would take a shot at that imagined Japanese soldier that had been creeping toward their slit trench. What I saw was the individual rifle fire was not that effective, it was the three machine guns that were the biggies, and always placed strategically. Bless machine-gunners.

My father was a paratrooper who fought in the Philippines, and later went into Japan with the occupation forces. He has no idea if he ever actually hit a Japanese soldier, since the jungles where he was were so thick you couldn't see squat, they just fired at where ever they thought the Japs were firing from. They would run across bodies now and then, but that was about it.
 
Last edited:
But if those who live in America (whether American born or not) are working for the enemy it is common sense to separate those enemies from the loyalists.



Only that wasn't the case. No Japanese American was ever convicted of treason, espionage, or sabotage during all of WWII. The same cannot be said for German and Italian Americans but comparatively very few of those ethnicities were thrown into FDR concentration camps.

In fact, even in the face of FDR's villainy Japanese Americans proved themselves unmistakably among the bravest and most loyal of any Americans.
 
The Peanut Gallery might be interested in all that 'villany' stuff FDR did re Japanese internment. This nice little essay on that explains a lot of what actually went on.

The Internment of the Ethnic Japanese in WWII -- Military Justification?

Some choice excerpts:

Most of the books on the subject focus on whether racism or at least discrimination based on recent national ancestry, was part of the decision to intern the Japanese. Once it is established that it was, they seem to feel their work is done. In my mind, even showing that someone is downright racist doesn't prove that they're wrong. If that were true, all I would need to do to prove that the world is flat is find a racist who thought it was round.

Hardly anything that I read wanted to discuss what the alleged military justifications were for the internment. Usually this whole angle is dismissed as ridiculous, or as having been addressed by a preponderance of other, unnamed sources. Had I been able to find much discussion at all of the military necessity issue, I would not have bothered to write and publicize this site.

I have never seen a web site that discussed the military considerations in any detail and then concluded that it was not understandable for someone who was not racist to advocate the internment. Should the reader find such a site, please inform me of the URL.


This essay does not discuss the nature of the experience of the internees. Material on this issue is very plentiful, and I felt there was no need for me to address it. Among the material describing the conditions, I found few complaints that they were actually inhumane. Things were austere, but adequate. Most complaints focus on the principle of the whole thing, and that's what I try to discuss in this essay. In general, the camps were so different from the camps of Nazi Germany that it is extremely misleading to refer to them as "concentration camps". Usually this material starts with the unstated assumption that there was no legitimate motivation for the whole thing, so every inconvenience, however minor, seems like a crime against humanity.
...

Some information is, nonetheless, available. At the beginning of the war, military intelligence had already been monitoring Japanese-American organizations. Some organizations were making aggressive statements about how Japanese everywhere should help with the wonderful empire that Japan was creating. Prior to Pearl Harbor, at least one major organization was raising money to fund the Japanese war effort. In 1940, an emperor worship ceremony in Sacramento attracted over 3000 participants. (The whole Japanese militaristic thing that started the war revolved around emperor worship).


The expert opinion at the time is clearly saying that while ties to Japan among the ethnic Japanese were strong, most were not inclined to do anything harmful to the US. This does not establish that internment is unnecessary, since a very small number could do great harm.
...


Do not lose sight of the fact that the people we're talking about were not like modern Japanese-Americans. 50,000 of them, the issei, were born in Japan, raised in Japan, and are subjects of his imperial majesty. Of the young American born (nisei) most are immediate descendants of the issei, and could be expected to be much less completely assimilated than Japanese-Americans are in the nineties, and to be harboring much stronger cultural and linguistic ties to Japan.
...


Things we know now indicate the vast majority of the ethnic Japanese community were not up to anything, and the Japanese government was making little effort, if any, to recruit them for anti-American activities.

That said, it is ridiculous to assert that none of those 120,000 ethnic Japanese, 50,000 of them Japanese nationals, would have aided the Japanese through acts of espionage and sabotage if the Japanese government had asked them to. I'm not sure, but refusal of such an order by a Japanese national would probably have been seen as an act of treason by Japanese law.
...


The only thing I ever seen about Japanese attempts to recruit was of a Japanese military officer who went to Honolulu posing as a tourist. Fresh off the boat, he did approach a few ethnic Japanese to try to recruit them, and got nowhere, finding they were far too loyal to the US to consider that (though not loyal enough to report him). Note that there is no reason to believe that this was the only attempt to recruit, it is just the only one I learned of.


This was a very half-hearted attempt. If I went to a local bar and started trying to recruit total strangers to commit terrorist acts for a fictional white supremacist organization, I don't think I'd get very far either. In fact, I'll bet someone would turn me in. Does this mean there is no threat to this nation right now of white supremacist terrorism?


If the Japanese had been more inclined to pursue this sort of dirty business (and at that time we had no way of knowing they were not), they could have approached better targets, like gung-ho Kibei, or old issei of known sentiments through hard-line ethnic organizations. Americans had no reliable way of knowing whether they were doing this, and would have been fools not to plan for the worst.
...


Many sources like to claim that though there were over a quarter million ethnic Japanese in the country during the war, none were ever known to collaborate with the enemy. This is untrue. The clearest case I have found was when a Japanese plane, after Pearl Harbor, crashed at Niihua island, near Kauai, and was aided by a Japanese American, a US citizen, named Harada. Harada threatened the lives of innocent Hawaiians who were just figuring out that a war was even going on. The only reason Harada was not convicted of treason was that he shot himself to death prior to being apprehended.

Note that very, very few civilians, especially ethnic Japanese, ever found themselves face to face with the enemy during that war. And even then, treason occurred. Had an invasion of California been attempted, or especially had the Midway invasion succeeded, followed by attempts on major Hawaiian islands, this incident suggests that treasonous acts might have been commonplace. It also casts severe doubt on the notion that ethnic Japanese, citizen or not, "must have liked it here" and hence could be relied upon to reject any requests the Japanese government might make of them for help.

This incident was covered in the Roberts report, which was available to and very much read by the people making the decision to intern. Many sources claim the Roberts report was in error about these claims, though it was taken by most to be true at the time of the decision to intern.
It is not remarkable if any dual loyalties existed within that group at that time. It is not remarkable that the government didn't trust them. It is remarkable how loyal they as a group turned out to be.


It was clear that internment wasn't going to have the most positive effect on the loyalty of the internees. Duh. In fact, it was realized that just interning some, like just the Issei and their young children, would probably have a big negative impact on the loyalty of the Americans, being their close relatives, usually their children. This played a role in the decision to exclude the lot.


Reports from experts doing interrogations said that most of the ethnic Japanese were "passively loyal", that is, basically loyal to the US, but were not willing to do anything to hurt Japan. When you're trying to win a war, that's not enough loyalty. John DeWitt chose to exclude them all without asking them where they stood, and thus spared them the trauma of declaring loyalties. He maintained to the end, that determination of disloyalty was not feasible and made some intelligent arguments in favor of this doctrine.
... and on. The claim that there were no acts of treason by Japanese is false, and of course another reason why is many of them were interned and deprived of any opportunity to commit such acts.
 
Last edited:
The Niihau Incident

dc4ker.jpg


the Niihau event influenced the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to summarily remove more than 100,000 persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast and intern them in the U.S. interior.

read
 
So, Mojo2? That's how America thinks about the traitorous far right today.

In fact, my dad and step dad, who both fought the Japanese as infantry and marine riflemen in WWII, would tell you the military training films were far worse.

Most people have a very difficult time in killing people.

Some of us in the military later adapted without any problems, others not so much.

Now Jake....or if you prefer, Pajama Boy, please do not equate your Democrat colleagues with actual Americans.

Henry, you are not American in the first place, haven't served in the second place, and don't understand adult conversation. Hush.


Even a stopped clock is right twice a day but you, PajamaJake, have just proven that you're not as reliable as even the most stopped of clocks. Perhaps you'd feel less self-hatred were you to just admit to yourself what we already know- that you're a simple Democrat.
 
"The exclusion and incarceration of Japanese Americans began in March 1942 with Roosevelt's creation of The War Relocation Authority, or WRA. During the first phase, internees were transported on trains and busses under military guard to the 12 hastily prepared temporary detention centers in California and one in Oregon. At these facilities detainees were housed in livestock stalls or crowded, windowless shacks that lacked electricity or even basic sanitation facilities. Food was in short supply."


"The second phase began midsummer and involved moving approximately 500 deportees daily from the temporary detention centers to permanent camps surrounded with barbed wire and guard towers. Guards were instructed to shoot anyone attempting to leave. These camps were located in remote, uninhabitable areas."


"Conditions in the camps, even by the standards of the day, were inexcusable. The structures consisted of tar paper buildings with no insulation. There was no privacy with several families living together in each structure. Meals were taken communally. Those forced into the camps lost their homes and businesses -- not to mention their possessions. They suffered the loss of faith in the government and the humiliation of being confined as traitors in their own country. And finally, many were used for free labor. In June of 1942, 1600 detainees were sent from assembly and relocation centers to fill sugar beet labor shortages in Oregon, Utah, Idaho, and Montana -- and by October over 8000 detainees were at work saving the crop harvest in various western states. Amazingly, two-thirds of those incarcerated were U.S. citizens."


"It is ironic that while their parents were forced into concentration camps, many young Japanese Americans found the courage to fight for -- not against -- America. "


"Throughout the course of World War II, not a single incident of espionage or treason was found to be committed by Japanese Americans. Japanese Americans in Hawaii were spared the humiliation of "relocation" simply because of the logistical problems associated with transporting a third of the state's population to the mainland. Even in Hawaii, with such a large and unrestrained Japanese-American population, there is not a single incident of espionage or treason!"


Japanese Americans | Archaeology Lessons | Archaeology Education | Chicora Foundation


“The very fact that no sabotage has taken place to date,” DeWitt explained as the program of repression began, “is a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken.”

That make sense to anyone? Anyone care to put their own ethnic group into such an equation? No? I didn't think so.
 
"Although there were a few voices in the administration against internment—particularly Attorney General Francis Biddle and Gen. Mark Clark, the Army’s deputy chief of staff—the president disregarded the dissenters. "


"By Order of the President, a critically acclaimed 2001 book by Greg Robinson, an American historian at the University of Quebec, revealed a number of incendiary articles about Asians that Franklin Roosevelt wrote in the 1920s. In those articles, the future president asserted that “the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results.” FDR argued that because “Japanese immigrants are not capable of assimilation into the American population,” they could not be trusted and their right to purchase land should be restricted."


"FDR’s writings and statements indicate that he regarded both Jews and Asians as having innate biological characteristics that made it difficult, or even impossible, for them to become fully loyal Americans. "


http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/162780/roosevelt-japanese-internment/2
 
Some choice excerpts:

Usually this material starts with the unstated assumption that there was no legitimate motivation for the whole thing, so every inconvenience, however minor, seems like a crime against humanity.[/B]
...



"However minor"? Really? Minor? :cuckoo:
 
Some choice excerpts:

In general, the camps were so different from the camps of Nazi Germany that it is extremely misleading to refer to them as "concentration camps".
.


Was FDR being "extremely misleading" when he referred to them as what they were - concentration camps?
 
The Niihau Incident

dc4ker.jpg


the Niihau event influenced the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to summarily remove more than 100,000 persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast and intern them in the U.S. interior.

read

Thanks for the link. A lot more to that incident than I found elsewhere. That combined with the other information, like the community support for the Japanese Empire, the citizenship issues, etc., made it a sound decision to intern them for a while.
 
For some reason lost to history FDR managed to talk an old Soldier who had done his duty in WW1 and retired at the highest rank in the Army, into taking over the Philippine defense which was the most likely first target of the Japanese aggressive strike. The decision was a disaster. MacArthur apparently thought he was a part of the State Dept and made his home in Manila with the elitist Philippine government. When the shit hit the fan on the day after Pearl Harbor MacArthur was incoherent and allowed his entire Air-Force to be destroyed on the ground parked wing to wing even after about a 24 hour warning. MacArthur was awarded the Medal of Honor after he was evacuated and left his entire command to become prisoners of the Japanese and worse within four months of Pearl Harbor.
 
That combined with the other information, like the community support for the Japanese Empire, the citizenship issues, etc., made it a sound decision to intern them for a while.


Where the hell are you from? You're damn sure no American.
 
For some reason lost to history FDR managed to talk an old Soldier who had done his duty in WW1 and retired at the highest rank in the Army, into taking over the Philippine defense which was the most likely first target of the Japanese aggressive strike. The decision was a disaster. MacArthur apparently thought he was a part of the State Dept and made his home in Manila with the elitist Philippine government. When the **** hit the fan on the day after Pearl Harbor MacArthur was incoherent and allowed his entire Air-Force to be destroyed on the ground parked wing to wing even after about a 24 hour warning. MacArthur was awarded the Medal of Honor after he was evacuated and left his entire command to become prisoners of the Japanese and worse within four months of Pearl Harbor.

So who would any of the Republicans who ran against Roosevelt have appointed if they had won? It's not like the U.S. Army was huge at the time, and it was pretty much a small 'good ole boy club' at the top, and most were politically well connected, and MacArthur most certainly was well connected. It was a miracle Eisenhower was leapfrogged to the top when the war broke out.

MacAurthur lived in Manila and MacAurthur thought he was a 'part of the State Dept.' because he was the in control of the Philippine govt.'s military at the time; they were still a semi-independent U.S. colony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur#Field_Marshal_of_the_Philippine_Army

Field Marshal of the Philippine Army

When the Commonwealth of the Philippines achieved semi-independent status in 1935, President of the Philippines Manuel Quezon asked MacArthur to supervise the creation of a Philippine Army. Quezon and MacArthur had been personal friends since the latter's father had been Governor-General of the Philippines, 35 years earlier. With President Roosevelt's approval, MacArthur accepted the assignment. It was agreed that MacArthur would receive the rank of field marshal, with its salary and allowances, in addition to his major general's salary as Military Advisor to the Commonwealth Government of the Philippines.[99] It would be his fifth tour in the Far East. MacArthur sailed from San Francisco on the SS President Hoover in October 1935,[100]
He was 'Johnny on the spot' when the war broke out, had knowledge of and good relations with the Philippine govt., thus the logical choice.

Would a Republican have appointed somebody different? Who had a better resume? Ike had been there, but he got tapped to run the war in Europe, the higher priority at the time.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top