Pacific

[gyrene81]

Statements like the ones Tom Hanks made last week that US Troops were racist and ignorant are completely unfair, in my opinion.  He even used those terms during the Pacific press events to describe our soldiers currently fighting in Afghanistan. 

Well, to be honest...as a former Marine and Army brat...many were and are racist...consider that our WWII fighting forces were made up of citizens from our country and the socially accepted attitudes toward race were also militarily adopted practices...the military didn't desegregate until the 1950s...it's not hard to figure many U.S. servicemen were racist. Racism was an accepted part of life in many countries at the time...not just the U.S., Japan and Germany...and those values came from thousands of years of human prejudice toward one another based on everything from skin color to eating habits.

Fair or not, it's a fact of life and it's true...those servicemen and women carry all of the values they grew up with, good and bad.

[skribetm]

A good historian is able to view the world accurately from the eyes of the participants at the moment in question. An even better historian and storyteller can make someone without knowledge of the period see the same and understand the outcome of the event.

this i completely agree with. all my posts about war atrocities are simply meant to elucidate the thread readers regarding the racist views held by the participants in the pacific conflict.
as i said, all racism is wrong and arguing about who did worse or didn't do it as bad is not as important as understanding the effects of said beliefs on the victims.

i would also appreciate if we police ourselves better, making personal attacks really just is unproductive and detracts from the substance of this thread. 

[Ack-Ack]

the pacific war was a hundredfold more brutal than the ETO.

On the Western Front, yes.  The war in PTO was far more barbaric and primal than what the Allies saw in western Europe, Italy and North Africa.  However, the war on the Eastern Front was probably the most barbaric war humanity has fought in centuries.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

That said, the propaganda during the war years was far more cruel to the Japanese than it was to the Germans. Yes, Hitler was constantly mocked in posters, comics, and even cartoons but I've never seen the individual German soldier or German citizen mocked with images of an individual wearing thick glasses, with buck teeth, and an inability to grasp basic thought.

Nor did you see in any official US military training documents that mention things like "Germans can't stand the sun because of their blond hair and golden skin complexion" but you'll find numerous references in early USAAC/USAAF documents about Japanese pilots not being able to have the far vision of Western pilots due to their slanted eyes or how Japanese soldiers preferred banzai attacks at night because their slanted vision gives them better night vision.

This is a reproduction tin of a WW2 propoganda poster that were placed in factories towards the end of the war.



ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

And this was just the first episode.

Want to start a pool that after the 2nd episode the majority of the posts will say "see rule #4"?


ack-ack

[Die Hard]

Let's make an effort to prevent that shall we? Let's keep it civil and within the rules.

[sluggish]

Don't hang you butt out in the wind and it won't get chapped.

[Nefarious]

I just watched it again, I recommend everyone should. I connected a little better with the main characters from that episode.

[Rino]

That's fine--I'll ask you the same question that you quoted then.  What's the yardstick for credibility?  If, in making an argument, I reference a source that I deem to be credible, then identify that source so that anyone else can read what he wrote and judge for themselves whether or not its credible, and then form my argument using that source as reinforcement, I think that's what usually is considered a cogent argument.  You guys don't have to agree with me, but don't simply dismiss his work, just because you've seen some so-called "expert" on the Discovery channel blathering about some topic.  I'm talking about a recognized historian that's considered an expert by peers.  Sort of like if I quoted Stephen Ambrose in a discussion about Dwight D. Eisenhower...

    It's the peers part I have a problem with.  Because it's something you agree with doesn't mean it's the only valid
viewpoint.  Some of us don't have to watch TV to get our facts straight, so you can stick that insult right where it's
most uncomfortable.  Think only college grads can read?

[Stoney]

    It's the peers part I have a problem with.  Because it's something you agree with doesn't mean it's the only valid
viewpoint.  Some of us don't have to watch TV to get our facts straight, so you can stick that insult right where it's
most uncomfortable.  Think only college grads can read?

You have completely missed the point.  Sorry I didn't communicate it better.

[bj229r]

i would also appreciate if we police ourselves better, making personal attacks really just is unproductive and detracts from the substance of this thread.

After reading this thread, I've concluded the majority of this bbs is comprised of a buncha nancys

[Rino]

By that logic we had intentions of invading the Soviets since we had tanks in western Europe. After all, tanks can only be used for offence right? 

     I know you work very hard at being stupid, but even a lawyer should be able to get this.  The tank was
created as a offensive weapon to penetrate the trenchlines in WW1.  The tank can be used defensively but
it is designed to attack not defend.  You don't manufacture 40K+ tanks to defend a border brainiac.

[Soulyss]

Well, to be honest...as a former Marine and Army brat...many were and are racist...consider that our WWII fighting forces were made up of citizens from our country and the socially accepted attitudes toward race were also militarily adopted practices...the military didn't desegregate until the 1950s...it's not hard to figure many U.S. servicemen were racist. Racism was an accepted part of life in many countries at the time...not just the U.S., Japan and Germany...and those values came from thousands of years of human prejudice toward one another based on everything from skin color to eating habits.

Fair or not, it's a fact of life and it's true...those servicemen and women carry all of the values they grew up with, good and bad.

A lot of this probably isn't far from the truth, considering what some of the socially accepted beliefs and behavior was back then.

One of my favorite books has the following introduction.

Practically everything in this book actually happened, so it's not really a novel.  Yet these people and events have been altered, so you can't call it a nonfiction.  It's an Exaggeration.

Not exaggerated, however, is the bigotry of the 1940's, here expressed.  The people of Gopher Squadron were racists and sexists.  We felt some small guilt about the former, but not about the later because we never heard the word.  To us, it was perfectly natural to think of women as, among many other things, sex objects, and to regard the machines we admired in terms we also applied to women.

That was the way we were.

[Die Hard]

     I know you work very hard at being stupid, but even a lawyer should be able to get this.  The tank was
created as a offensive weapon to penetrate the trenchlines in WW1.  The tank can be used defensively but
it is designed to attack not defend.  You don't manufacture 40K+ tanks to defend a border brainiac.

In 1981 NATO had a total of 30,711 tanks in Europe. If the Soviets built their tanks to invade western Europe what did we build our tanks for? Did we build 30K+ tanks to defend a border? Is the magical production number somewhere between 30K and 40K where you can only use your tanks for attack? It's very... "convenient" to say that they planned to attack because they built tens-of-thousands of tanks, while we built tens-of-thousands of tanks only "to defend a border". I don't buy it and neither do you, though you'll never admit it.

[Grayeagle]

The day Hiroshima was bombed was terrible.
So was that day at Pearl.
And that day in Nanking.
And that day in Warsaw.
And London.
And Coventry.
.. etc. .. etc..

'What goes around comes around' .. and in the case of the Axis .. it came around in SPADES.
'You mess with the Bull .. you get the HORNS' .. and so on.

The best comparison on a personal level is fighting a drunk.
You have to hurt them very badly to make them STOP .. because they will *not* otherwise.

Colonel Tibbets expressed it very well ..he said he'd do it again in a heartbeat .. it was War.

-GE aka Frank