Posted on 01/31/2017 5:11:01 AM PST by topher
This is not helpful.
Whenever I get into an argument with libs over the Supreme Court, Korematsu v. US is a case I like to drop on them, to illustrate a past error of the Supreme Court. Plessy v. Ferguson is too easy.
hey thanks.
It’s amazing what I learn when I think I know everything.
Mainly because union troops didn't kill tens of thousands of civilians. Not even remotely close.
One issue that isn’t widely known is that we knew of many Japanese intelligence operations using emigres via the Magic intercepts. I’m not saying this justifies what was done, that there wasn’t another way of solving the problem, but it makes the whole issue much murkier than we have been led to believe.
Magic: The Untold Story of U.S. Intelligence and the Evacuation of Japanese Residents from the West Coast During WW II
https://www.amazon.com/Magic-Intelligence-Evacuation-Japanese-Residents/dp/0960273611
You are correct on the codes. See my previous post about Magic, it’s a great resource on the subject.
Bottom line, FDR got burned by the Japanese in Pearl.
Nobody on this board can say that the Japanese were a bigger spy risk than Germans. I used to play behind my home in STL in the woods in guard shacks for a Japanese internment camp. Yes they had them in other places in STL. Like Wildwood.
Ever pick apples in Eckerts Orchards here on a hayride? So did the Japanese in the 40s. But it was no hayride.
A Japanese spy was no risk of infiltrating McDonnell Douglas nearby making airplanes. They look different.
German people? Nearly everyone in St Louis has a little German blood, some a lot. The Japanese weren’t building airplanes for the Navy in st Louis. German descendants were.
My point: FR posters don’t need to stick up for FDR.
And where was the ACLU? Also remember the steamship St. Louis with Jewish refugees that was turned back; all perished in concentration camps.
“Mainly because union troops didn’t kill tens of thousands of civilians.”
You need to study history. Look up Lincoln’s “hard war”. What was the need for shelling cities that did not have any troops in them? All Southerners were classified as criminals without rights.
I bet you don’t know that 20,000 American soldiers were trapped behind Russian lines in Germany at the end of the war. They were all carted off to Russia and never heard from again. Or that hundreds of thousands of German civilians were slaughtered after the war in different European countries for revenge. Or that Stalin, long before Hitler got going, had murdered about seven million Ukrainians because they refused farm collectivization.
IIRC, no papers were allowed to be printed in German in this same city during WWII...and maybe a broader area.
That was, I believe, how they justified it. But there had been no sabotage, no evidence sabotage was being planned, and no real justification for doing it.
Federal troops, in the South, killed tens of thousands of civilians. You never hear any outrage over that.
And killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japan and Germany during World War II. War is hell, so what's your point?
Since you are so well read in History, please provide us uneducated the names of some the books that you have read which cite 20,000 American soldiers trapped behind Soviet lines never to be heard from again. Also the title of the books that claim tens of thousands of southern civilians were killed by occupying Federal troops would be nice. I wish to be as well read up on this stuff as you obviously are.
“But there had been no sabotage”
That is the point. They were all contained.
“And killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japan and Germany during World War II. War is hell, so what’s your point?”
My point is that why do people cry tears over the comparatively benign treatment of the 110,000 Japanese by the Americans compared to the real war. War is hell.
I could not resist, "In a loud voice I exclaimed, "Oh my look at this document, Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt was the one who ordered thousands of innocent Japanese families into internment camps."
One of the students asked his teacher, "Is it true- a Democrat President did this?"
The teacher's face flushed, "Time to go"
“I wish to be as well read up on this stuff as you obviously are.”
Being snarky over something you don’t know about is not intelligent.
American troops abandoned: Try (for one source) —
Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character (St. Martin’s Press) by Diana West.
In fact, as was pointed out, reparations were made to some of them.
But it was done in the name of 'National Security'.
What Trump is doing currently is prevent people from known places of terrorist from entering the United States until there is a way to check backgrounds.
For example, a combination of lie detector tests, thorough checking the backgrounds of people wishing to enter the US from places like Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc., is a start, but clearly would not prevent terrorists from entering the US from these countries.
My point of the thread is that FDR imprisoned US citizens; Trump is trying to prevent terrorists from other countries from entering the US.
They love FDR!
I think people know war is hell. That is not up for debate. The debate is FDR locking up most (close to all?) Japanese and only locking up 11k Germans of the 5,000,000 German people in america with two German ancestors.
I personally don’t think FDR deserves a pass. He got burned. He took it out on Japanese women and children.
Growing up near a navy airplane manufacturer (I flew navy airplanes from a different company), I just don’t see how a Japanese infant would have been more likely to be a threat an a full German person.
The debate is FDR’s decision. Its not about who is tougher in times of war.
There is a children’s aisle in every library praising FDR.
I don’t get it.
This is not helpful.
___________________________________
How is this not helpful? As you see, we are engaging in a decent conversation over the pros and cons of internment.
If you’d rather ignore history, then there are other threads to click on.
“I just don’t see how a Japanese infant would have been more likely to be a threat an a full German person.”
I doubt seriously that Roosevelt thought that a Japanese infant baby was a threat. They needed, of course, to be with their parents.
There are plenty of people who think that FDR did not get burned at all at Pearl Harbor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.