Let's compare and contrast here, shall we?

Three years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR has the Germans and Japanese
by the throat.

Three years after 9/11, Bush 43 allows Al Qaeda to murder American civilians
at will.

Walt

>Let's compare and contrast here, shall we?
>
>Three years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR has the Germans and
>Japanese
>by the throat.
>
>Three years after 9/11, Bush 43 allows Al Qaeda to murder American civilians
>at will.
>
>Walt

Let's continue the comparison. FDR had an almost unaminous support in the
Congress. Bush clearly does not. FDR had almost unaminous support in the
American Press. Today Bush faces a majority of media outlets that wish his
presidency to fail regardless of the threat to the country.

FDR could jail American citizens with no proof of any crime or criminal intent.
Bush cannot bring himself to increase surveillance of our porous borders and
potential enemy aliens lest he arouse firestorm of protest in Congress and the
Media.

FDR already had selective service conscription in place and could increase the
size of the military to levels never dreamt of before or since. Bush finds
himself caught up in the backwash of the Peace Dividend recklessy squandered by
his predecessor.

FDR had two genuine allies and one nation coincidentally fighting one of the
same enemies and therefore worthy of support. Dozens of other countries
contributed tiny amounts of troops in order to gain some advantage in the
postwar redistribution of influence. Bush finds himself with only one genuine
ally and that one under the same internal and external assaults that he is
subject too. Dozens of countries are contributing tiny amounts and several
major countries are actually waiting out the results or actively conspiring
against him to suit thier own advantage in the post war world.

FDR allowed the Germans and Japanese to murder and torture American POWs at
will from 1941 to 1945 and the American Press never called him on it.

John Dupre'

"JDupre5762" > wrote in message
...
> >Let's compare and contrast here, shall we?
> >

> FDR allowed the Germans and Japanese to murder and torture American
POWs at
> will from 1941 to 1945 and the American Press never called him on
it.

No proof of that for the Germans at all: they complied strictly with
the Geneva Convention. Over 95% of American POWs of the Germans
survived the war.


>
> John Dupre'
>

On 20 Jun 2004 04:38:58 GMT, (JDupre5762) wrote:

> FDR had an almost unaminous support in the
>Congress.

That would have come as a great surprise to FDR!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 07:58:16 GMT, "Eunometic" >
wrote:

>No proof of that for the Germans at all: they complied strictly with
>the Geneva Convention. Over 95% of American POWs of the Germans
>survived the war.

That didn't help the ones sent to Auschwitz.

A 5 percent casualty rate is pretty high, especially if you're not
fighting, and most especially if you're one of the victims.

75 percent of American PWs of the Japanese survived the war. That
doesn't mean they weren't ill-treated.

To be sure, the German military (and more particularly the air force)
were meticulous with respect to their rules for treating western PWs.
(They deliberately let Russian prisoners die by the hundreds of
thousands.) But the system didn't work if you got caught by the
Gestapo, as happened to most airmen on the run; it didn't work very
well if you were a Jew; and it didn't work at all toward the end, when
the PWs were sent on a lunatic death march to keep them from being
liberated by the Russians on the east or the Americans on the west.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

>No proof of that for the Germans at all: they complied strictly with
>the Geneva Convention. Over 95% of American POWs of the Germans
>survived the war.

There was just recently on the History Channel a story about the 101st airborne
in Normandy. The Germans murdered 32 wounded paratroopers in cold blood along
with a number of French civilians, including two priests.

The Germans also murdered after torture, @ six of the "Cockelshell" crews that
wrecked several merchant ships by using Limpet mines. They were all in uniform
and engaged on legitimate military operations.

The commander of 12th SS PzDiv had 20 Canadian prisoners murdered in cold blood
also.

The Germans did not -strictly- go by the GC, although they generally did
against the Western Allies.

Walt

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >No proof of that for the Germans at all: they complied strictly
with
> >the Geneva Convention. Over 95% of American POWs of the Germans
> >survived the war.
>
> There was just recently on the History Channel a story about the
101st airborne
> in Normandy. The Germans murdered 32 wounded paratroopers in cold
blood along
> with a number of French civilians, including two priests.
>
> The Germans also murdered after torture, @ six of the "Cockelshell"
crews that
> wrecked several merchant ships by using Limpet mines. They were all
in uniform
> and engaged on legitimate military operations.

British Commandos themseves did not take prisoners and were found with
orders not to do so as this presumably might imperil their mission.
This was the basis of Hitlers commando Order. Depite being in a
uniform I do not think that men who themselves never take prisoners
and kill those trying to surrender to them have an automatic right to
protection under the convention?

I do not know of the Cockshell crews opperated as Commandos but this
may the the basis of the executions. I have been unable to find any
details of the raids on the internet. Only something about a
novell/movie called the Cockellshell heroes.

On the whole the Germans stuck to the conventions and prosecuted those
German officers who broke them. The same can not always be said for
the Americans.

>
> The commander of 12th SS PzDiv had 20 Canadian prisoners murdered in
cold blood
> also.

Then he was a war criminal and would have been court martialed. I
presume he had expedient reasons such as no facilities such as no
abillity to transport them.

I am somewhat cynical of these claims, initialy, as they may be a beat
up like the Malmedy massacre and so many other crimes that turn out
to be mainly either escape attemps, accidents and mistakes.

Even this pro US piece reveals serious anomalies:
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauTrials/MalmedyMassacre02.html

(Note the Malmedy 'massacre' confessions was obtained by severe
torture of the German POWs it was only the intervention of Taligunner
Jo McCarthy that assured justice. One German officer commited
suicide rather than "confess" against his collegues.)

In fact one should ALWAYS be extremely cyncial of 'war crimes' or
'massacres' they are often agitation porpaganda. In the first world
war in order to get the British (and Americans) into WW1 British
intelligence claimed that German troops were throwing Belgium babies
in the air and impaling them on bayonets, turning bodies into soap and
raping whole villages of women at a time. They even appologised after
the war for this!

These stories, like the baby incubator scandal, serve to promote war
agitation and they also excuse ones own people from their own
barabarity.

They always precede war and seem to excuse ones own attrocities.

War crimes should always be prosecuted but so should those who invent
war crimes. The consequences are just as severe.

>
> The Germans did not -strictly- go by the GC, although they
generally did
> against the Western Allies.

The Soviets were not signatories to the Geneva Convention: they were
already too busy murdering for their 'crimes' Latvians, Lethuanians,
Ukranians etc in real death camps the really were intended to murder
people to consider it worthwhile signing up to a treaty like that.


>
> Walt
>

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then he was a war criminal and would have been court martialed. I
> presume he had expedient reasons such as no facilities such as no
> abillity to transport them.
>
> I am somewhat cynical of these claims, initialy, as they may be a beat
> up like the Malmedy massacre and so many other crimes that turn out
> to be mainly either escape attemps, accidents and mistakes.
>
> Even this pro US piece reveals serious anomalies:
>
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauTrials/MalmedyMassacre02.html
>
> (Note the Malmedy 'massacre' confessions was obtained by severe
> torture of the German POWs it was only the intervention of Taligunner
> Jo McCarthy that assured justice. One German officer commited
> suicide rather than "confess" against his collegues.)
>

What "Taligunner Jo McCarthy" was that?

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 07:58:16 GMT, "Eunometic"
>
> wrote:
>
> >No proof of that for the Germans at all: they complied strictly
with
> >the Geneva Convention. Over 95% of American POWs of the Germans
> >survived the war.
>
> That didn't help the ones sent to Auschwitz.


Were those men killed? Do you have any proof? I'm aware that
Germans sometimes refused to negotiate with Jewish officers in POW
camps as they wished to give them no power but that is the extent of
it. I am vaguely aware of some American POWs that ended up there and
they survived (becuase I saw them interviewed I think)

Auschwitz as a term should means nothing for the purposes of this
discusion and you are close to invoking Godwins law, becuase its
rhetorical effect is so massive and emotive and you'll have to explain
what that means.

Auschwitz was a series of 3 camps that supplied labour to the
sorounding factories or included factories. Not all of these were
death camps indeed possibly non of them were. The death rate is
officialy down to 800,000 not the 4,000,000 once noted. Official
hopes to find the gas chambers now mostly rest on a converted but
demolished farm house outside the camp complex. There is a recent
attempt to analyse concrete remains as well.

Most people that went there for this those 800,000 that died either
were killed away from the 3 camps and some died of the diseases and
food shortages that occured in the closing months of the war.

I do not argue that Auswitz was not a death camp, I merely point out
that a trip to Auschwitz was NOT necesarily a death sentence.

>
> A 5 percent casualty rate is pretty high, especially if you're not
> fighting, and most especially if you're one of the victims

It includes those dying from 'escaping' and natural causes and the
wounds many naturaly have upon capture (EG downed airmen).
Treatment was offered, including surgery, for those wounded and it is
only proper that their care not be excluded from statistics. Once in
a camp the allied prisoners generally organised their own health care.

Conditions were harsh. These are some reports of the toughest of the
camps here:
http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/id64.htm

Escaping prisoners caused the Germans lots of problems both
ecoomically and personally. Some individual guards who has lost a son
or family to Allied bombing, and had leave cancelled that could be
spent with family could be very resentfull and harsh. Naturaly this
depended on the individual with some more philoshophical over this.

>
> 75 percent of American PWs of the Japanese survived the war. That
> doesn't mean they weren't ill-treated.

OK if I get caputured I'll go with the Germans and you go with the
Japanese.


>
> To be sure, the German military (and more particularly the air
force)
> were meticulous with respect to their rules for treating western
PWs.
> (They deliberately let Russian prisoners die by the hundreds of
> thousands.) But the system didn't work if you got caught by the
> Gestapo,

I don't regard that as correct. The huge numbers of prisoners taken
at the begining of the war overwhelmed the German facilities to take
care of them. It was the same with German prisoners at Stalingrad.
It takes the captors days even weeks to even work out how many
prisoners they have.

Argentinians died on the Malvinas due to malnutrition and exposure
only recently.

> as happened to most airmen on the run; it didn't work very
> well if you were a Jew;

I have to be harsh here: I suppose you get many of your ideas out of
watching crap Hollywood war films which are known for their technical,
military and historical inaccuracy. In fact it is hard to beat an
American film in this area for their vile agitprop, sterotypes and
slanders and more irritatingly for converting heroes that were
British, Canadian or Australian into Americans.

At the same time they turn the enemy, usualy Germans into wooden
idiots who have 2/3rds of their bodies hanging out of tank turrets,
don't post sentries, can aim or are always commiting atrocities.

If you read "Robert J Stove's" 'The Unsleeping Eye' a 'brief history
of Secret Police' you will note most arrests of Jews by the Gestapo
(basically the equivalent of FBI) were for protective custody with
most of the Jews released several days latter. Strange but true.

Some of the Gestapo interogrators were brutal whereas others prefered
to rely on their intellectual skills.

There were plenty of American war criminals in the second world war
and they most got away with it from the small shootings of prisoners
in camps or at the time of capture to: Eisenhowers Rhine Death Camps.


> and it didn't work at all toward the end, when
> the PWs were sent on a lunatic death march to keep them from being
> liberated by the Russians on the east or the Americans on the west.

The trafic loss of life (1200 men I think) was not an intentional
Death march and it was not standard practice: it was no worse than
American treatment of POWs but emergent from the rapidly deteriorating
conditions in the last days of the war that was killing civilians and
military alike. That is what happens when the enemy isn't offered
terms of surrender: they fight on and they know they may have no
choice but to fight to the death. The Brutal rapes and massacres
that the Russians were commiting meant that surrender was unthinkable.
Women having their legs torn apart with trucks. The Germans were
perpared to surrender to the Allies.

100,000 Germans died in the Rhine death camps. Many could have been
released much earlier and been better treated. That is only the
'official' number and many sources put the numbers much higher.

The Malmedy massacre was most certainly also not a massacre yet this
non attrocity was used as an excuse to murder surrendered Waffen SS
men, it was used to smash to a pulp the testicles of 22 year old
soldiers to extract confessions often of men who were no where near
the area and simply in a related company.

Americans are capable of Atrocity, Abu Graib showed that. I don't
hold that against them but I don't hold them as superior as they hold
and i don't hold the Germans anywhere near as villainous as they are
made out.

If this war goes on get used to being viewed as and American as being
as ghoulish as the Hollywood stereotype of a German soldier.


>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
> Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

>> The Germans also murdered after torture, @ six of the "Cockelshell"
>crews that
>> wrecked several merchant ships by using Limpet mines. They were all
>in uniform
>> and engaged on legitimate military operations.
>
>British Commandos themseves did not take prisoners and were found with
>orders not to do so as this presumably might imperil their mission.
>This was the basis of Hitlers commando Order.

So you are excusing Hitler?

Depite being in a
>uniform I do not think that men who themselves never take prisoners
>and kill those trying to surrender to them have an automatic right to
>protection under the convention
>
>I do not know of the Cockshell crews opperated as Commandos but this
>may the the basis of the executions. I have been unable to find any
>details of the raids on the internet. Only something about a
>novell/movie called the Cockellshell heroes.
>

It took me about ten seconds to find this:

"Marine Bill Sparks, who has died aged 80, was the last of the two surviving
“Cockleshell Heroes” responsible for paddling a canoe 85 miles through
enemy defences to cripple German merchant ships at Bordeaux.

During the night of December 11 1942, 10 Royal Marines set out in five craft;
but eight of them were shot or drowned. Sparks and Major “Blondie” Hasler
found themselves pursued through France and Spain by vengeful Germans for three
months before they reached safety.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/799434/posts


If British commandos did not take prisoners, that would be in accord with their
typical mission. I would not have expected the Cockelshell crews to take
prisoners either. But the Germans who captured these Royal Marines certainly
had the facilities to take prisoners. They were clearly in uniform and carrying
clandestine, but clear military operations.

>On the whole the Germans stuck to the conventions and prosecuted those
>German officers who broke them. The same can not always be said for
>the Americans.

Details?

>
>>
>> The commander of 12th SS PzDiv had 20 Canadian prisoners murdered in
>cold blood
>> also.
>
>Then he was a war criminal and would have been court martialed.

Here's some detail on that:

"The atrocities continued. Other Canadians were captured and taken to the
Abbaye d'Ardenne, the headquarters of the German division where Meyer had
watched the battle unfold. In the abbey garden eleven Canadians were
interrogated and then killed on 7 June, each Canadian prisoner shaking hands
with his comrades before being executed. At noon the next day seven more
Canadians were shot at the Abbaye; their murders coincided with the execution
of Canadian POWs on the Caen-Fountenay Road. The following evening Canadian
prisoners were taken to the 12th SS's 2nd Battalion headquarters to meet their
death. On the now tranquil grounds of the Chateau d'Audrieu, Canadian POWs were
interrogated and duly executed, first in threes and later in more efficient
larger numbers. These large-scale incidents represent 120 of 156 murders
committed by the Hitlerjugend during the first ten days of the Normandy
Campaign. Other murders took place on a smaller scale at locations like
Bretteville d'Orgueuise, Norrey and le Mesnil-Patry. News of the murders began
to filter back to the Canadian ranks in Normandy, but there was little
immediate proof of the atrocities.[8] "

http://grad.usask.ca/gateway/archive9.html


I
>presume he had expedient reasons such as no facilities such as no
>abillity to transport them.

No. You don't seem very qualifed to comment, as these murders of the Canadian
POW's is fairly well known.

>
>I am somewhat cynical of these claims, initialy, as they may be a beat
>up like the Malmedy massacre and so many other crimes that turn out
>to be mainly either escape attemps, accidents and mistakes.

If you can show that Americans did anything like the above, get back to me.

<snip>

>
>>
>> The Germans did not -strictly- go by the GC, although they
>generally did
>> against the Western Allies.
>

As I said, the Germans did not -strictly- go by the GC although they generally
did against the Western Allies.

Walt

>From: jdupre5762@

>Let's continue the comparison.

Roosevelt also threw Japanese residents into detention camps by the tens of
thousands. Imagine if Bush 43 tried to do that with Muslims.


Chris Mark

Chris Mark wrote:
>> From: jdupre5762@
>
>> Let's continue the comparison.
>
> Roosevelt also threw Japanese residents into detention camps by the tens of
> thousands. Imagine if Bush 43 tried to do that with Muslims.

Roosevelt was wrong in his day, and our Congress not too long ago acknowledged
precisely that.

If 43 gets reelected, we may not have to do very much imagining. We presently
have an undisclosed number of Muslims in detention who have not yet been
charged with any crimes against the state, nor have they been allowed access to
legal counsel and they've been subjected to a lot of other things made possible
by the Patriot's Act. The numbers may burgeon in time.

I don't know where we're going with this comparison. Throwing people into
concentration camps because you fear something they might possibly do some day
in the future without a shred of evidence is no more conscionable (sp?) today
than it was when Roosevelt did it in 1942.

George Z.

>>> Let's continue the comparison.
>>
>> Roosevelt also threw Japanese residents into detention camps by the tens of
>> thousands. Imagine if Bush 43 tried to do that with Muslims.
>
>Roosevelt was wrong in his day, and our Congress not too long ago
>acknowledged
>precisely that.
>
>If 43 gets reelected, we may not have to do very much imagining. We
>presently
>have an undisclosed number of Muslims in detention who have not yet been
>charged with any crimes against the state, nor have they been allowed access
>to
>legal counsel and they've been subjected to a lot of other things made
>possible
>by the Patriot's Act. The numbers may burgeon in time.
>
>I don't know where we're going with this comparison. Throwing people into
>concentration camps because you fear something they might possibly do some
>day
>in the future without a shred of evidence is no more conscionable (sp?) today
>than it was when Roosevelt did it in 1942.
>
>George Z.
>

President Roosevelt's incarerating American citizens of Japanese ancestry
without due process was very bad. There's no doubt about. But no one had
dreamed the Japanese could attack PH. It seemed prudent to take all precautions
on the West Coast. To condemn FDR now is to make a generational judgment on
him, however.

I will say I might be more forgiving of Bush 43 playing fast and loose with
executive power -- if-he-had-anything to-show-for-it.

I had not posted much in this NG around the time of the invasion, but I did
support it. MUCH to my surprise the Bush administration had only the vaguest
notion of how post-war Iraq would look. They then made every operational and
strategic mistake they possibly could.

I've posted them before. These include:

Not involving the UN in the war. Basically, as events have shown, without UN
involvement (i.e. more troops), we can't subdue the country.

Misreading (unless he just lied) the intelligence on Iraqi complicity/duplicity
in Al Quaida's attacks on the US.

Ditto on weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Saddam.

Dismissing the Iraqi army. We could have paid them $200,000,000 for three
months (vice 5,000,000,000,000 a month that we are spending now) and not had
hundreds of thousands of military trained men hanging around unemployed.

Dismissing Ba'ath party officials. It's now suggested that at least some
Ba'athists be brought back.

Ignoring the estimate of the Army Chief of Staff in Feb, 2003. Gen.
Shinseki said "several hundred thousand" US troops would be needed. The
Bushies just ignored that -- it didn't fit the plan.

Focusing on Iraq when Al Quaida is in Afghanistan. Afghan countryside is now
run by the warlords.


Again, look at where FDR was after three years, and look where Bush is. I was
watching "Meet the Press" today. Lehrman, the former Reagan era SecNav was
saying, "we still don't have this, that and the other thing." And Tim Russert
said: "After three years?" All Lehrman could do was hem and haw.

That's what I am saying -- after three years?

Let's take a moment to think about another war time president, Abraham Lincoln.

When Lincoln took office, seven states were in active rebellion. The US army
was only 17,000 strong. The armory at Pensacola (for instance) was manned by
an ordance sergeant and his wife. Most of the army was in the west. That was
March 1861. Lincoln made a ton of mstakes. He fired generals probably too
quickly. He consistenly over estimated Union sentiment in the south, he
meddled in operations (until Grant took over). Of course Lincoln did a lot of
good things too.

Three years later, Union armies totaling over a million men were poised to
crush the rebellion, which they shortly did.

How close are we to crushing Al Qaeda?

It was reported a couple of nights ago that Al Qaeda training camps are
operating RIGHT NOW in the afghan/Pakistani border area. And did anyone see
the report that Taliban fighters had occupied a provincial capital in
Afghanistan this last week? They've since been ejected, but I guess someone
will now make a parallel to that occupation and the Battle of the Bulge.

Bush and his sorry crew need to go --not because he ducked his military
obligations, --not because he stole enough votes in Florida to steal the
election (aided and abetted by the Supreme Court), but because he is a
blithering idiot with blithering idiot staffers who have fouled up the war on
terror.

Walt

>
>"JDupre5762" > wrote in message
...
>> >Let's compare and contrast here, shall we?
>> >
>
>> FDR allowed the Germans and Japanese to murder and torture American
>POWs at
>> will from 1941 to 1945 and the American Press never called him on
>it.
>
>No proof of that for the Germans at all: they complied strictly with
>the Geneva Convention. Over 95% of American POWs of the Germans
>survived the war.

>>
>> John Dupre'

They did? Not towards the Soviets or occupied territories nor towards the 12
million murdered in the camps.

Want to keep it just to POWS? Ever heard of The Great Escape? 50 escapees were
murdered in groups of 2 or 3 AFTER being captured. Ok, let's keep discussing
POWS. Ever heard of the "Commando Order" issued by Hitler? How many allied air
crews were murdered before becoming POWs? I'm talking here about murders by
military people not civilians as in Hamburg where British aircrewen who
parachuted into the city were bound and thrown alive into the burning
buildings.

On the other hand FDR didn't "allow" Axis atrocities. He just couldn't stop
them.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

>From: "Eunometic"
>
>British Commandos themseves did not take prisoners and were found with
>orders not to do so as this presumably might imperil their mission.
>This was the basis of Hitlers commando Order.

OK, we have another revisionist here. I snipped the rest of his garbage.

The British commandos were found with orders on their persons? That is an out
and out lie. This fool even blames the Brits for Hitler's Commando Order.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

>From: (Chris Mark)
>Date: 6/20/2004 10:58 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>From: jdupre5762@
>
>>Let's continue the comparison.
>
>Roosevelt also threw Japanese residents into detention camps by the tens of
>thousands. Imagine if Bush 43 tried to do that with Muslims.
>
>
>Chris Mark

Germans and Italian residents were also detained. Ellis Island even became a
detention camp.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431 wrote:

> Germans and Italian residents were also detained. Ellis Island even
> became a detention camp.

German-American and Italian-American citizens of the United States were not
interned en masse; Japanese-American citizens were. Not just alien
residents, mind you, but American citizens, some going back several
generations, were locked up in camps without the slightest hint of due
process. They were even forbidden to move out of the prohibited areas
voluntarily; only internment was acceptable.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

>From: "Thomas Schoene"
>Date: 6/20/2004 4:36 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: . net>
>
>B2431 wrote:
>
>> Germans and Italian residents were also detained. Ellis Island even
>> became a detention camp.
>
>German-American and Italian-American citizens of the United States were not
>interned en masse; Japanese-American citizens were. Not just alien
>residents, mind you, but American citizens, some going back several
>generations, were locked up in camps without the slightest hint of due
>process. They were even forbidden to move out of the prohibited areas
>voluntarily; only internment was acceptable.
>
>--
>Tom Schoene

I never said otherwise. Most Americans are totally unaware that entire German
and Italian families were also interned. Most European internees were just as
innocent as the Japanese. Bear in mind who was making the arrests: the FBI
under J. Edgar "like my dress?" Hoover.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

>From: "George Z. Bush"

>> Roosevelt also threw Japanese residents into detention camps by the tens of
>> thousands. Imagine if Bush 43 tried to do that with Muslims.
>
>Roosevelt was wrong in his day, and our Congress not too long ago
>acknowledged
>precisely that.

Interesting that Earl Warren was a strong proponent of interning the Japanese
while J.Edgar Hoover opposed it.

>I don't know where we're going with this comparison.

Probably nowhere. The situation in WW2 is not comparable to the situation
today. And some of the things Roosevelt did couldn't even be contemplated
today. For example, he pushed Attorney General Francis Biddle to try his more
outspoken congressional critics for sedition, in particular Martin Dies, Burton
Wheeler and Hamilton Fish. Under pressure from FDR William Powell Maloney was
named "Special Assistant" with broad investigative powers to unearth links
between Roosevelt's war policy critics and German propaganda and intelligence
networks. During the investigation Maloney leaked hints that he was about to
indict Rep. Fish and Clare Hoffman, though he never did. He also targeted
Father Coughlin, the "radio priest," but shied away from issuing an indictment.
He did, however, indict 28 "extremest" antiwar types from various walks of
life. Eventually 30 people were tried but with no convictions.
Today that would be like Bush pushing Ashcroft to have Michael Moore, Noam
Chomsky, the Dixie Chicks, et al, tried for sedition, with threats of charging
Ted Kennedy with treason. Not even conceivable, so much have times changed.

>Throwing people into
>concentration camps because you fear something they might possibly do some
>day
>in the future without a shred of evidence is no more conscionable (sp?) today
>than it was when Roosevelt did it in 1942.

The old saying is that after every war there is less freedom to protect. But
the US generally has learned from the extreme actions taken during previous
national emergencies and behaves with more restraint each time. Bush can't do
what Roosevelt did, Roosevelt couldn't do what Wilson did and Wilson couldn't
do what Lincoln did.

And again, this war isn't like WW2, where we had clear nation-state enemies and
harnessed the full power of the economy to crushing them without mercy and with
total disregard for "collateral damage." Today's war, whether we are for it,
against it, or sitting on the fence, we have to admit is a pretty low-intensity
affair, not even close to the intensity of Vietnam, let alone World War II.
The closest comparisons I can come up with--and they aren't all that close--are
the post-civil war Indian campaigns, the Philippines Insurrection and various
Carribean/Central American adventures, with the Philippines business being the
closest. Difficult, costly, not a lot of casualties but militarily challenging
and with general success, even some amazing accomplishments, but not
unambiguously leading somewhere, while divisive among citizens, with many
wondering not only what the point of it all was, but actively opposed to an
effort that seemed to be against the basic principles of the country: We should
not be going around invading other countries to impose democracy on them. And
the cynics said it was really about making money not democracy. The equivalent
of Haliburton then was, I suppose, Del Monte or Dole.

Same song, different lyrics.


Chris Mark

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 07:58:16 GMT, "Eunometic" >
> wrote:
>
> >No proof of that for the Germans at all: they complied strictly with
> >the Geneva Convention. Over 95% of American POWs of the Germans
> >survived the war.
>
> That didn't help the ones sent to Auschwitz.

Not to mention Russian POWs.

>From:

>Germans and Italian residents were also detained. Ellis Island even became a
>detention camp.

Right. Not much attention is paid to it, but it was pretty serious business.
Many Italian fishermen, for example, people who had emigrated to the US decades
before Pearl Harbor, lost their livelihoods because they weren't allowed near
ports.


Chris Mark

>From:

>Bear in mind who was making the arrests: the FBI
>under J. Edgar "like my dress?" Hoover.

To be fair to J. Edgar, he insisted that the majority of Issei, Nisei and Kibei
would prove to be loyal in the fight with Japan. If there were spies and
sabateurs among them, the FBI could ferret them out through normal
investigations.
The biggest advocates of the mass round-up of Japanese was Earl Warren, then
California state attorney general who went around making inflamatory speeches
charging that the Japanese residents of California were a nest of saboteurs
and traitors. He used the hysteria he whipped up to ride into the governorship
in the 1942 election.


Chris Mark

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> Let's compare and contrast here, shall we?
>
> Three years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR has the Germans and
Japanese
> by the throat.
>
> Three years after 9/11, Bush 43 allows Al Qaeda to murder American
civilians
> at will.
>
> Walt

In 1944, sir, how many Americans died? I would suppose that for Normandy
alone, it is far higher. When Kamikazes hit US ships, and when Nazis shot US
POWs, was that FDR allowing them to do it at will for kicks? Stop trolling.

DEP

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
>
> Roosevelt also threw Japanese residents into detention camps by the tens
of
> thousands. Imagine if Bush 43 tried to do that with Muslims.
>

Japanese residents? He interned Japanese, Italian and German foreign
nationals. Which is fine, every nation does that. But he also detained
American citizens of Japanese, Italian, and German descent.

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> German-American and Italian-American citizens of the United States were
not
> interned en masse; Japanese-American citizens were.
>

Not true. While it was not as wide spread and is not nearly as well known
as
the incarceration of Japanese-Americans, there were Americans of Italian and
German descent that received similar treatment.

>> That didn't help the ones sent to Auschwitz.>
>
>Were those men killed?

Some died there. Many were rescued by the German air force. Some were
rescued by the German air force only to die later on the death marches
of April 1945.

The case I know of was not a Jew. He was caught by the Gestapo while
on the run in France (not an escapee but a downed airman) and was sent
by the usual cattle car to the east. He didn't specify whether any of
the Americans he fell in with at Auswitz were Jews, but then he
wouldn't have; that was the least important thing about them at that
point.

You don't have to die to be brutalized beyond imagination, as any
survivor of Auschwitz (and there were many) can testify, or any
survivor of a Japanese camp.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:36:31 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

>German-American and Italian-American citizens of the United States were not
>interned en masse; Japanese-American citizens were.

If you are the person interned, it makes very little difference if you
were singled out or interned en masse. Indeed, it's probably worse if
you were singled out.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

On 21 Jun 2004 01:02:25 GMT, (Chris Mark) wrote:

>To be fair to J. Edgar, he insisted that the majority of Issei, Nisei and Kibei
>would prove to be loyal in the fight with Japan. If there were spies and
>sabateurs among them, the FBI could ferret them out through normal
>investigations.

Yes, this appears to be the case. It's told in Persico's Roosevelt's
Secret War, a sober and interesting book..

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

>Right. Not much attention is paid to it, but it was pretty serious business.
>Many Italian fishermen, for example, people who had emigrated to the US decades
>before Pearl Harbor, lost their livelihoods because they weren't allowed near
>ports.

I lived in Concord MA during the war. In the 1940s it was a
truck-farming town, not a yuppie bedroom community. Many of the
farmers were Italian. One was so Italian that the boys were named
Primo, Secondo, and Tercero, if I spell them correctly. In the way of
boys, however, we were totally unaware that there was anything unusual
in this, and I don't recall that I ever associated them with the evil
Germans, Italians, and Japanese with whom the nation was at war.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

> The situation in WW2 is not comparable to the situation
>today.

It's comparable in that both FDR and Bush 43 faced one day events that
fundamentally changed the course of the country.

FDR mastered his challenge, Bush 43 is foundering.

This is from today's NY Times:

"Mr. Lehman also predicted that the commission's final report would include
unanimous recommendations for change in the intelligence services, which he
said could not distinguish "between a bicycle crash and a train wreck."

"It is dysfunctional," he said. "It needs fundamental change, not just tweaking
and moving the deck chairs or the organization boxes around."


I don't know if we can stand four more years of spinning our wheels in the war
on Terror.

Bush 43 is an incompetent arrogant elistist *******. It is time for him to go.

Walt

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
> >From:
>
> >Bear in mind who was making the arrests: the FBI
> >under J. Edgar "like my dress?" Hoover.
>
> To be fair to J. Edgar, he insisted that the majority of Issei, Nisei and
Kibei

Kibei? Issei is first generation, Nisei is second generation, but the last time
I looked, Ki was not a number anywhere in the first ten (ichi, ni, san, shi, go,
roku, shichi, hachi, ku, ju), so what does Kibei mean?

> would prove to be loyal in the fight with Japan. If there were spies and
> sabateurs among them, the FBI could ferret them out through normal
> investigations.

>It's comparable in that both FDR and Bush 43 faced one day events that
>fundamentally changed the course of the country.
>
>FDR mastered his challenge, Bush 43 is foundering.

Comparable? They are the same,because PSYOPs aganist its own people is the only
thing that some elements inside US gov't understands.

1)
"FDR stated that we are likely to be attacked perhaps as soon as next
Monday..The question was how we maneuver into the position of firing the first
shot without too much danger to ourselves.In spite of risk
involved,however,inletting Japanase fire the first shot,we realized that in
order to have the full support of the American People it was desirable to make
sure that the Japanase be the ones to do this so that there should remain no
doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors"
Henry Stimson,Journal entry dated Nov.25,1941

2)
"..as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society ,it may find it
more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues,except in the
circumstances of a truly massive and direct widely perceived direct external
threat"

Zbigniew Brzezinski,Grand Chessboard,1997

3)...the process of transformation....is likely be a long one,absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event -like a NEW PEARL HARBOR"

Rebuilding Americas Defenses,Sep.2000

4)
"The other day the reporter friend told me that one of the highest ranking CIA
officials said to him,off the record,that when the dust finally
clears,Americans will see that September 11 was a triumph for the intelligence
community,not a failure"

CIA agent Baer,See no Evil,2002

We see the same movie for 150 years.

>From: "George Z. Bush"

>what does Kibei mean?

Kibei were Japanese born in the US but who went to Japan for their education,
then returned to the US.


Chris Mark