Posted on 08/03/2004 8:47:30 AM PDT by aculeus
I usually prefer not to get my history from the internet, but this site seems to be fairly reliable.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=268
By the way, this isn't rocket science. Ask someone who has actually studied the relevant fields (WWII, British history, cryptography) and they will tell you that this is a myth. ALL the primary sources contradict your assertion that Churchill knew that Coventry was going to be the target of bombing.
There were certainly clues that were evident using hindsight, but the fact remains that the intelligence at Churchill's disposal at the time pointed to central London being the most likely target. (which he also did not evacuate, by the way)
You cannot defend actions taken by the Chief Executive to seize people's property and by doing so their livelihood. Many like to give FDR a pass on this, but to me it was just part of the continual pattern of abuse of central authority that was indicative of Roosevelt's time in office.
Oh, we have other ways of dealing with undesirables besides internment. Just ask Randy Weaver & David Koresh, among others.
I didn't say you and I'm not trying to bait you either. According to your reasoning about the threat to America, we should be interning people.
Malkin at Cedar Park Friday night ping (in case you haven't seen it or didn't know).
And if you've ever seen threads related to those people you know how long and combative they can get. Oh yeah I forgot Elian Gonzales too... Yeah I'm on the side of the government oppressing people. NOT! People should know from those examples that the government will do whatever the hell they want and when they to innocent citizenry.
And worse, it calls into question here judgment with respect to other things she may have written.
This is a bit of legend that was created by Anthony Cave Brown in his otherwise good book, Bodyguard of Lies.
Please read Ronald Lewin's Ultra Goes to War for a definitive rebuttal of the claim.
Very good link to Coventry and Churchill. Sounds convincing on first reading.
Only if all the surrounding facts were the same: that is, if we knew the exact names of hundreds of Muslim AQ terrorists in the USA, from broken AQ codes, and if arresting them would cause AQ to change codes etc. That's not likely. Also, the current WOT can't compare to WW2 in 1941.
Aha, Please read more carefully, I did not say internment was right or wrong. I essayed on the necessity of making wise choices for the survival of America, and my reasons for believing she MUST survive.
As far as supporting my country, sorry, I am a nationalist, my country right or wrong. No nation is perfect, so America can't be always right. There is so much right with America as compared to any other nation that I am safe with that position. The millions of foreigners coming here legally, illegally, some at great risk, clearly see that America is more right than wrong. I see you are off base.
I seem to recall that internment of "enemy aliens" once hostilities have been declared has been a commonly accepted practice in the western world for several hundred years. This seems to serve a dual purpose, isolating potential saboteurs and spies from their targets and protecting innocent aliens from misplaced retribution exacted by citizens enraged by the conflict.
Being targeted for internment is certainly uncomfortable and likely to inspire deep, long term resentment; but membership in an insular, unassimilated group will uneluctably lead to limit sympathy from the rest of society. Even in case of war with Vietnam breaking out again, I cannot imagine internment of American Vietnamese as they have successfully assimilated and are now as American as anyone. However, Islamists are setting themselves up for mass deportation or worse by their resistance to becoming Americans.
By the way, members of my own family changed their last name in early 1942 so it would not be so obviously Italian and my grandparents were required to register as enemy aliens (despite their three sons in military service).
So cry me a river for the Nisei, it just goes to show that war is not nice.
It certainly does.
I cannot trust anyone who will defend the interment of innocent Americans solely on the color of their skin. All of her other writings must now be viewed with skepticism.
We should decry the internment to the heavens, not defend it. Conservatives didn't do this. Our hands our clean. Why does she want to take responsibility for this on our shoulders by defending it?
It wouldn't surprise me at all if Malkin announced she was working for the Democratic Party.
We (you and I) live in a country called AMERICA. This country was founded and settled by the Puritans and Pilgrims (who brought with them the basis for our governance - God's Word). England didn't like the fact that we were becoming less reliant on them, so they decided to provoke war (known as the War for Independence). God's sovereignty reigned and we were given victory.
Thus proceeded the growth of the greatest country on the face of this planet. People went to GREAT sacrifice in order to come here and reap the prosperity through hard work and adherence to our moral code (Scripture).
FDR decided to throw that out the window with his foolish decision to intern AMERICAN citizens who were guilty of NOTHING! Then, after the war, he instituted the NEW DEAL so that government would be our provider and keeper (instead of God the Father). WHAT A PRESIDENT!!!
Nothing else going on in any part of the world justified the internment camps. As I keep repeating, you (and others like you) would be singing a COMPLETELY different tune if it was you (and your sons and daughters) taken off to central Oklahoma tomorrow because you happened to be of an "EVIL" race.
</rant off>
Perhaps you should change your name.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation." – Spencer
FDR did nothing "after the war," as he died before the war was over. The New Deal preceded World War II.
The facts you cited seem to be in dispute, and I think I'll just have to say we have a difference of opinion on this particular issue.
Also, the current WOT can't compare to WW2 in 1941.
** How's that? I know wars are being being better fought with better intelligence, weapons,etc.
But these were not "enemy aliens." AMERICAN CITIZENS were also rounded up and sent to the camps.
I disagree with your contention that they were somehow cutting themselves off from American society. Those that had been allowed to come over were prohibited from becoming citizens. They wanted to assimilate, but we didn't want them.
And explain to me how it is justified to seize the businesses and homes of any American citizens without compensation.
Ok..Just as with Travis I will try to explain this one more time.
Any time that we as a country take an AMERICAN CITIZEN and put them in an internment camp as well as FORCING the liquidation of ALL of their possessions then we are in the wrong. It does not matter what else is going on extraneous to that. We must adhere to our moral code (Scripture) or we have nothing.
Exactly how is that "off-base" again?
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.